GNU bug report logs - #7397
make-docfile should support the @FILE command line option

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 7397 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 7397 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: make-docfile should support the @FILE command line option
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 04:01:28 -0500

src/Makefile.in contains some ugliness just in order to reduce the
command line length for make-docfile.

Instead make-docfile could support the @FILE syntax.  That would
remove the command line length limitation.

Snarfed from the GNU ld info page:

`@FILE'
     Read command-line options from FILE.  The options read are
     inserted in place of the original @FILE option. 

Message #8 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7397: make-docfile should support the @FILE command line
	option
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 04:31:50 -0500

> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 04:01:28 -0500
> Cc: 
> 
> src/Makefile.in contains some ugliness just in order to reduce the
> command line length for make-docfile.
> 
> Instead make-docfile could support the @FILE syntax.  That would
> remove the command line length limitation.

I'm not against adding this feature to make-docfile, but are we sure
this problem is real nowadays?  What systems cannot grok the full list
of Lisp files?  shortlisp is 2.2KB long; how much longer can the full
list be?  I don't think we have any system supported that cannot
handle at least 10K long commands, do we?

Maybe we should simply dump this ugliness, and see if someone hollers?

Message #11 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7397: make-docfile should support the @FILE command line
	option
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:01:29 -0500

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
>> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 04:01:28 -0500
>> Cc: 
>> 
>> src/Makefile.in contains some ugliness just in order to reduce the
>> command line length for make-docfile.
>> 
>> Instead make-docfile could support the @FILE syntax.  That would
>> remove the command line length limitation.
>
> I'm not against adding this feature to make-docfile, but are we sure
> this problem is real nowadays?  What systems cannot grok the full list
> of Lisp files?  shortlisp is 2.2KB long; how much longer can the full
> list be?  I don't think we have any system supported that cannot
> handle at least 10K long commands, do we?
>
> Maybe we should simply dump this ugliness, and see if someone hollers?

That's an option, but it might cause problems down the road when the
length increases again...
@FILE guarantees that we won't have any problems in the future.

Message #14 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#8302: 23.3;
	Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:31:30 -0400

( Moving comments from bug#8302 to bug#7397 )

Dan Nicolaescu wrote:

>>> Or even better make make-docfile accept arguments from a file, using the
>>> @FILE syntax used by other GNU tools.  That would deal with the command
>>> line length limitations.
>>
>> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7397
>>
>> By itself, I don't see how this helps, since you still need to find a
>> way to write the input file without overflowing the command line length.
>
> Use >> ?

I still don't get it. You cannot do:
    
    for file in $lisp; do
      sed '<blah>' $lisp >> input-file
    done
    
    make-docfile @input-file

because the "for file..." line could be too long for the shell.

> [This might be a moot point now that a solution has been implemented, so
> please don't keep this bug open just for this reason]

I may close #7397 in a bit then.

Message #17 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7397: bug#8302: 23.3;
	Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:30:56 -0400

Glenn Morris wrote:

> I still don't get it.

Oh, I guess the src/Makefile .el.elc rule could also have appended to
the make-docfile input file as it compiled each .el file, or something.

Message #20 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#7397: bug#8302: 23.3;
	Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:52:13 -0300

>> I still don't get it.
> Oh, I guess the src/Makefile .el.elc rule could also have appended to
> the make-docfile input file as it compiled each .el file, or something.

This would require running the byte-compiler without a DOC file.
IIRC this may require a few tweaks.


        Stefan

Message #25 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#7397: bug#8302: 23.3;
	Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 16:56:52 -0400

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> This would require running the byte-compiler without a DOC file.
> IIRC this may require a few tweaks.

I don't think this needs to be implemented, and I think I am probably
missing some obvious way how it would work, so this is all academic
anyway, but:

Huh? The DOC file requires the .elc files to be compiled first.
bootstrap-emacs compiles files just fine without a DOC file.

Message #28 received at 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 7397 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Dan Nicolaescu <dann <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#7397: bug#8302: 23.3;
	Parallel make: some *.el files are byte-compiled twice
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 20:56:54 -0300

> Huh? The DOC file requires the .elc files to be compiled first.
> bootstrap-emacs compiles files just fine without a DOC file.

I guess I'm just remembering the problems I encountered when
implementing the bootstrap, but that I did fix them all at that time.
Good, thanks,


        Stefan

Message #33 received at 7397-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: 7397-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7397: make-docfile should support the @FILE command line
	option
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 15:03:51 -0400

I don't think we need to keep this open.
The src/Makefile ugliness is hopefully reduced/gone now.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.