From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: 1e633418479926bc85ed21a4f91c845a3dd3ad66 breaks on OSX Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:45:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20101006014518.GA8557@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <86r5g42wo8.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <86iq1g2vhq.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <20101005213401.GA22845@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: "Randal L. Schwartz" , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= , Git Mailing List To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 06 03:45:42 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P3J4a-0003mG-KU for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 03:45:37 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757725Ab0JFBpT (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:45:19 -0400 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:33221 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751071Ab0JFBpO (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:45:14 -0400 Received: (qmail 5168 invoked by uid 111); 6 Oct 2010 01:45:13 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 01:45:13 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:45:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:33:20AM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 23:34, Jeff King wrote: > > +ifndef NO_PERL > > +all:: perl/perl.mak > > +endif > > + > > Regardless of whether that fixes the problem that looks like a sane > patch, so maybe we just should apply it? I'm not opposed, though the situation is confusing enough I'd like to have somebody confirm that my previous analysis makes sense (otherwise, this is just adding cruft to the Makefile :) ). Sadly, I can't seem to replicate the original problem, even doing something like: n=1 while true; do make clean; if ! make -j4; then break; fi echo $n; n=$(($n+1)) done (and I tried several variations). It ran for 20 minutes without failing. My suspicion is that there may be some particular state that triggers the race condition, but I can't seem to figure it out. -Peff