[Bug libgcj/22580] New: "make -j" doesn't effect source->bytecode compilation

[Bug libgcj/22580] New: "make -j" doesn't effect source->bytecode compilation

[mckinlay at redhat dot com]

X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC

Since the classpath merge, I have noticed that the source->bytecode stage of the
libgcj build is not being paralellized.

This warning was also seen:

make[4]: Entering directory
`/home/mckinlay/cvs/gcc/build-x86_64/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libjava/classpath/lib
make[4]: warning: jobserver unavailable: using -j1.  Add `+' to parent make rule.

-- 
           Summary: "make -j" doesn't effect source->bytecode compilation
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: libgcj
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: mckinlay at redhat dot com
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org,java-prs at gcc dot gnu
                    dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug libgcj/22580] 'make -j' doesn't effect source->bytecode compilation

[mckinlay at redhat dot com]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|"make -j" doesn't effect    |'make -j' doesn't effect
                   |source->bytecode compilation|source->bytecode compilation


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug libgcj/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't effect source->bytecode compilation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-21 05:03 -------
Confirmed, I did not notice this until now.
make[5]: warning: jobserver unavailable: using -j1.  Add `+' to parent make rule.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-07-21 05:03:09
               date|                            |
            Summary|'make -j' doesn't effect    |[4.1 Regression] 'make -j'
                   |source->bytecode compilation|doesn't effect source-
                   |                            |>bytecode compilation
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug libgcj/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From rmathew at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-21 11:00 -------
Regards,
Stickler Sosumi.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[4.1 Regression] 'make -j'  |[4.1 Regression] 'make -j'
                   |doesn't effect source-      |doesn't affect source-
                   |>bytecode compilation       |>bytecode compilation


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug libgcj/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-30 01:02 -------
The problem is the compile-classes rule in the libjava/classpath/lib/Makefile.am
file.  This rule contains a line $(JAVAC) that has a recursive make hidden
inside it.  make -j requires that all lines that perform a recursive make
contain the string $(MAKE), the string ${MAKE}, or start with +.  This is before
variable substitution, etc.

Three possible solutions off the top of my head:
1) Add a comment that mentions $(MAKE), e.g. change the line
        $(JAVAC)
to
        $(JAVAC) # $(MAKE)
2) Add a + to indicate this line does a recursive make.  This is apparently
POSIX (though my manual isn't here to double check).  E.g. change the line
        $(JAVAC)
to
        +$(JAVAC)
3) Delete the JAVAC variable, and put the line in question directly into the
compile-classes rule.

I verified that the first two suggestions work.  I didn't try the third, it
seems less practical.

Since JAVAC is being conditionally set, and only the GCJ version has the hidden
recursive make, we probably need a conditional fix here.

I'll leave it to the java and/or classpath folks to decide how they want to fix
this.  You may want to check the make manual for info on the MAKE variable, -j,
jobserver, and +.

My libjava build is still going, so it is possible that there are other similar
problems I haven't noticed yet.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug classpath/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-04 21:45 -------
This is a classpath issue

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bug-classpath at gnu dot org
          Component|libgcj                      |classpath
            Product|gcc                         |classpath
   Target Milestone|4.1.0                       |---
            Version|4.1.0                       |0.15


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug classpath/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-10 18:47 -------
I'm handling this.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-07-21 05:03:09         |2005-08-10 18:47:16
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug classpath/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-10 18:53 -------
I checked in a fix to classpath.
I'll pull it into libgcj with the next update.
(If it is more urgent I can pull it in separately sooner.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug classpath/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at developer dot classpath dot org  2005-08-10 20:27 -------
Subject: Bug 22580

CVSROOT:	/cvsroot/classpath
Module name:	classpath
Branch: 	
Changes by:	Tom Tromey <tromey@savannah.gnu.org>	05/08/10 18:53:25

Modified files:
	.              : ChangeLog 
	lib            : Makefile.am 

Log message:
	For PR classpath/22580:
	* lib/Makefile.am (compile-classes): Made conditional on
	FOUND_GCJ.
	(JAVAC): Redefined when FOUND_GCJ.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/classpath/classpath/ChangeLog.diff?tr1=1.4377&tr2=1.4378&r1=text&r2=text
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/classpath/classpath/lib/Makefile.am.diff?tr1=1.96&tr2=1.97&r1=text&r2=text






-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580

[Bug classpath/22580] [4.1 Regression] 'make -j' doesn't affect source->bytecode compilation

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-01 19:47 -------
This was fixed a while ago and the fix has since been
imported into the libgcj build.


-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |0.18


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22580