Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now that I think about it, could it be that Jam hits a BeOS limit? > > Specifically, the open FD limit? > From what I've seen it shouldn't. The only files opened are Jamfiles > and > source/header files while header file scanning. From the first > category > only as many as recursively included should be open at a time and the > header scanning is done sequentially. Searching for targets in > directories > is also done sequentially. So, unless there's an FD leak, the FD > usage > should well fall within the limit. Hm, the default limit is 128 FDs, and we have almost 800 Jamfiles in our repository - the limit at least could be touched. In any way, I think it's close enough to think about it :) > > That would make a very simple > > explanation for this misbehaviour, and would be simple to fix as > > well. > Definitely an interesting idea. I'll look into it when tackling the > build > system. Great, thanks! > [...] > > > I think the build gurus among us should try and fix those "out of > > > the > > > box" compile problems, or new developers might be alienated. > > Indeed. Just like the full build under Linux :-) > Yep, will do that. For sake of small turnaround times I intend to do > as > much as possible of the build system restructuring under Linux. Very nice, just make sure it'll also keep working on R5 :-) Bye, Axel.