From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id hQp2CBSuCGCvKAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:26:28 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id gDTAAxSuCGBYIwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:26:28 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96E699402B3 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:26:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:53766 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2Lvm-0007KI-BF for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:26:26 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53344) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2LvF-0007JC-S5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:25:53 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:21575) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l2LvA-0003Mq-MJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:25:53 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-173-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.173.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DLg8P6qbRz3wXS; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:25:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1611181542; bh=PFRrA0vGcNuiEkhlbFZ9IAQKGSSzHo0IggfmL59HZWk=; h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=KH2TktMrKfiVYJhLwChrRefu8gusiaObVPbc5lr+SC8IkSjcQPs2UFgKPEEez6SVn CQbUmjL5B0/K2Feg3j+YjHDg200R6zw47pPBOq/SjPe7bpuminPnxk4sWtS0w0WLkc zMAf55PP6vnvgQgJh0dyA4Z1KmGuE0HMwJKt+Z7I= Message-ID: <47cbd9d70bbedc0c92987ee6b01b30aaf37f6e63.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Fwd: Building Guile with =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98-j1=E2=80=99=3F?= From: Leo Prikler To: Mark H Weaver , guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 23:25:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <874kjbgvtd.fsf@netris.org> References: <372235f86af11b000b1dc2b493e29aca2e8706cc.camel@student.tugraz.at> <874kjbgvtd.fsf@netris.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.05 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=KH2TktMr; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 96E699402B3 X-Spam-Score: -2.05 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: NbC/DoySDMln Am Mittwoch, den 20.01.2021, 16:08 -0500 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > Leo Prikler writes: > > > There could potentially be another workaround by synchronizing > > inside > > guild, i.e. claiming a lock before reading and evaling any given > > source > > file. This would have the advantage of applying to all guile > > packages, > > not just the ones that use guile-build-system, and it would also > > allow > > non-Guile stuff, e.g. C extensions to be built in parallel. WDYT? > > I don't think this would solve the problem, because it wouldn't > ensure > that the Guile modules are compiled in a deterministic order, and > therefore the issue I raised in would > lead to nondeterministic results. > > Mark Because the OS might choose to schedule the tasks in a different order than spawned, e.g. compilation tasks 1-4 start "simultaneously and get reordered 1, 3, 2, 4? Indeed, that would be a problem. I don't suppose file-lock based queues exist, do they?