Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:21:55 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] makefile: add silent rules On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:10:36AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: > > I remember there were several advantages to standard full output, so the > > verdict was that *if* they're added, they get disabled by default. > > It is disabled by default. There was never any agreement to add this stuff, just a consensus that, if it does get added despite the overwhelming opinions against it, it be off-by-default. > > While this patch does respect that, I'd like to know whether there's a > > better reason for the added ugliness than "Some folks don't like to see > > what's happening"... > > It is faster, you see the warnings w/out useless clutter. You do not > care about seeing what the clean target is doing most of the times and such. The speed issue is the only somewhat compelling one; musl's build does take several times longer on slow terminals merely because the terminal sucks. It's really sad when it takes more time to display 2-3 lines of text than to compile and assemble a whole .c file... > > Patch 3/3 is the most valuable part of the series, I think. > > I can see merging that, and patch 2/3 is trivial. > > Indeed, but since I did the work and since at least for few people is > useful I tried to rebase it. I'm still undecided. My leaning is towards simplicity in the build system. This sort of feature really belongs in make itself, not re-implemented in every makefile (i.e. make could just print something like "$< -> $@" for every rule it runs and suppress the printing of the commands). Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.