From: david.brown@hesbynett.no   
      
   On 30/10/2025 21:37, Keith Thompson wrote:   
   > David Brown  writes:   
   > [...]   
   >> Try "time make -j" as a simple step.   
   > [...]   
   >   
   > In my recent testing, "make -j" without a numeric argument (which   
   > tells make to run as many parallel steps as possible) caused my   
   > system to bog down badly.  This was on a fairly large project (I used   
   > vim); it might not be as much of a problem with a smaller project.   
   >   
   > I've found that "make -j $(nproc)" is safer.  The "nproc" command   
   > is likely to be available on any system that has a "make" command.   
   >   
   > It occurs to me that "make -j N" can fail if the Makefile does   
   > not correctly reflect all the dependencies.  I suspect this is   
   > less likely to be a problem if the Makefile is generated rather   
   > than hand-written.   
   >   
      
   There certainly are makefile builds that might not work correctly with   
   parallel builds.  And I think you are right that this is typically a   
   dependency specification issue, and that generating dependencies   
   automatically in some way should have lower risk of problems.  I think   
   it is also typically on older makefiles - from the days of single core   
   machines where "make -j N" was not considered - that had such issues.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)