From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-68936-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25443 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2010 18:20:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 25433 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2010 18:20:58 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.23)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:20:54 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Dec 2010 18:20:51 -0000
Received: from xdsl-78-35-49-66.netcologne.de (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [78.35.49.66]  by mail.gmx.net (mp055) with SMTP; 02 Dec 2010 19:20:51 +0100
Received: from ralf by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>)	id 1PODly-0004Di-Mf; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:20:50 +0100
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:20:00 -0000
From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: PATCH: PR binutils/12283: bfd/doc doesn't support parallel build
Message-ID: <20101202182050.GB16143@gmx.de>
References: <20101202170032.GA19376@intel.com> <20101202180829.GA16143@gmx.de> <AANLkTikDiv+z6DtpZ8DT64gKDtcxsdycJVdNwbExCs7-@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikDiv+z6DtpZ8DT64gKDtcxsdycJVdNwbExCs7-@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-08-04)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-12/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2

* H.J. Lu wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 07:16:07PM CET:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * H.J. Lu wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 06:00:32PM CET:
> >> Any objection to this patch?
> >
> > The rule to update $(MKDOC):

> > should be atomic (the ';' should be '&&' though).  So, I would be
> 
> Failure is very random. There is a race condition. "make -j8" on a 16core
> machine can start making $(MKDOC) at the same time. How can move-if-change
> be 100% atomic?

Well, 'mv -f' within a mount point is atomic, that's how.  Show the
failure when you next see one, please.  Also, which make version?

We could move to the PR for gathering data?

Thanks,
Ralf