On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:57:19 +0000
> > From: Lucas Gabriel Vuotto <lucas@sexy.is>
> > 
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 04:27:38PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > I had quite a bit of fun with students this week, and stumbled upon
> > > getopt ::   extension.
> > > 
> > > Figured out, it would be obvious to do in make.
> > > 
> > > I looked at the others (very few instances) of tools that use ::
> > > to discern a pattern: in general, the consensus is that if we get an
> > > optarg, we whine if it doesn't match our expectation.
> > > 
> > > So here's a patch to have make -j use hw.ncpuonlines if there's no optarg.
> > > Might come in handy for people compiling on several machines who don't
> > > want to remember the details.
> > > 
> > > Wrt posix's compatibility, opengroup doesn't say anything.
> > > 
> > > And gmake -j does something (doesn't limit the number of jobs, from the doc)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So, handy ? crazy ? not needed ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's a very straightforward patch with an obvious failure path.
> > 
> > Personally, I don't like how optional args are handled: the argument is
> > now required to go right after the option letter, without space:
> > `make -j 4` doesn't work as it currently works anymore, and instead will
> > use all the online cpus and will try to build the target `4`.
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty much a deal-breaker for me.

Ah, I didn't test this. I assumed getopt was smarter than that...

IMO, unless gnu getopt does something fishy that's similar, -j4 ought to
still work, obviously.

Deal breaker for me as well ;)