Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:14:21AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 8:00 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:18:26AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>> FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default.  While here, I've
> >>> moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong,
> >>> also saves a few lines.  Reviews are welcome.
> >>
> >> Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639
> > 
> > Hmm, can you explain a bit more?  Maybe I am missing something here, but
> > as I read log for r317639:
> > 
> >   "[F]ix MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not being set if none of DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS or
> >    MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS were set."
> > 
> > Previously (without my patch) it could happen because of nested .if's.  Now
> > _MAKE_JOBS is set in both branches (true and false). [...]
> 
> I see now. You removed this
> 
> -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS)
> 
> So it should be fine now.

Right.  Just to make it clear (for everyone who is reading): previously we
needed FORCE_MAKE_JOBS as it was not the default; now we don't need it and
it was removed; thus making second .if check needless.  Ergo, we can easily
ensure that _MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is always set now, without using the separate
check for its emptiness (after the .if).

./danfe