X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; q=dns; s=default; b=TiKAV/iR0Qj3WfF3rb10inYp0z97
	uRBCZCA0qiLyyegFfuW4uVnoRw78sSdHYHxNa+0734G1qrV9AoBmfg999+BcywFW
	rvSjobyP1/1yl/tiPRQBhm4gc+36R7+thuOEdUwHBER80LzvhmQQkZpfLwttJO1l
	lyzHLbVUhdQg2Gs=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from
	:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id
	:references:to; s=default; bh=fKLzbLGtUwmb+oSnAq6mFNbIxfg=; b=gR
	HofTZApa6pwmPPJG30P6koyBZUmA5MINcL/z7P2gpzLDCUc79A/fwIP4lzy6pI/z
	oJEc5RBBQ9dfwLa6mUrCWEzTE61t9dzADCg81rKFVIa0G1QsUawsYBd16iTmeeWc
	JGzUZ9EYSX9ywguXobucLJTdektYruSh/EJYVQAXU=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	etr-usa.com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
Subject:	Re: how to make sure subprocesses die?
From:	Warren Young <wyml AT etr-usa DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<55D447C5.7000002@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:02:07 -0600
Message-Id:	<25FF8F91-7399-4874-A09A-F948DB95906E@etr-usa.com>
References:	<55D33D15 DOT 2030401 AT gmail DOT com> <47B92080-8E07-4832-9520-A183E3436070 AT etr-usa DOT com> <55D447C5 DOT 7000002 AT gmail DOT com>
To:	The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7JJ2K2r021466

On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:09 AM, Noel Grandin <noelgrandin AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-08-18 04:31 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> Works for me.
>> 
>> Disagree?  Provide a replicable, simple test case to show it.
> 
> This is the main LibreOffice build, and it's a multi-million line codebase, so shrinking the problem is my first priority :-)

So on the one hand, you have one of the simplest real-world build systems (Exuberant Ctags’) and it works fine, and you have one of the most complicated (LO’s) and it doesn’t work as expected.

Somewhere in that vast gap is your answer.

Instead of trying to shrink LO, what happens if you build LO to completion, then touch a common header file that causes another dozen or so files to need rebuilding?  Does it recur?  What happens if that header file spans multiple subsystems within LO, vs being confined in its effects to just one subsystem?

What I’m getting at is, maybe your problem is in the way one make(1) instance spawns another, something that doesn’t happen in non-nested build systems, as with ctags.  If it all works fine when you’re only rebuilding one subsystem with a single make(1) instance, but fails with nested make(1) calls...
--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -