Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

From: Hartmut Holzgraefe <hartmut(dot)holzgraefe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yuriy Zhuravlev <stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms
Date: 2018-05-02 21:43:50
Message-ID: 5febd8b7-5ef3-8536-bafc-f0690dde2aa0@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02.05.2018 17:44, Robert Haas wrote:
> But having parallel make work better and more efficiently
> and with fewer hard-to-diagnose failure modes would definitely be
> nice.

that's especially a thing I haven't seen in "our" environment,
this was an area where autotools and cmake didn't really differ,
at least not for the Unix/Makefile side of things.

The only thing about parallelism I remember that it sometimes
doesn't work well with the progress percentage output of cmake
generated makefiles ... but that's purely cosmetic.

--
hartmut

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2018-05-02 21:47:38 Re: Optimize Arm64 crc32c implementation in Postgresql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-05-02 21:20:37 Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48?