From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1619 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] makefile: add silent rules Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:21:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20120817012155.GR27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1345133887-4041-1-git-send-email-lu_zero@gentoo.org> <30247.132.241.65.36.1345158201.squirrel@lavabit.com> <502D8BFC.8030601@gentoo.org> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345166450 14574 80.91.229.3 (17 Aug 2012 01:20:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 01:20:50 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1620-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Aug 17 03:20:50 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T2BF2-0002Nq-VP for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 03:20:49 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 24382 invoked by uid 550); 17 Aug 2012 01:20:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24372 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2012 01:20:47 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <502D8BFC.8030601@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1619 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