Re: Shrink volume of default make output

On 1/2/17 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
>> The recent thread about compiler warnings got me thinking about how it's
>> essentially impossible to notice warnings with default make output.
>> Perhaps everyone just uses make -s by default, though that's a bit
>> annoying since you get no output unless something does warn (and then
>> you don't know what directory it was in).
>
>> Is it worth looking into this? I'm guessing this may be moot with the
>> CMake work, but it's not clear when that'll make it in. In the meantime,
>> ISTM http://stackoverflow.com/a/218295 should be an easy change to make
>> (though perhaps with a variable that gives you the old behavior).
>
> I'm not really sure which of the kluges in that article you're proposing
> we adopt, but none of them look better than "make -s" to me. Also,
> none of them would do anything about make's own verbosity such as
> "entering/leaving directory" lines.

I was specifically thinking of quieting the compiler lines, along the
lines of silencing the CC lines. That would still provide the per
directory output for some amount of status. (At first I thought of doing
the @echo "Compiling $<" hack, but in retrospect there's probably no use
in that.)

The attached hack doesn't quiet everything, but makes a significant
difference, 1588 lines down to 622, with 347 being make -C (each of
those was a make -j4 after a make clean).

If folks are interested in this I can look at quieting the remaining
output. My intention would be to still output something on entry to a
directory that would take a non-trivial amount of time (like
src/backend). Though if it's very likely that the CMake stuff is going
to happen (is it?) then I don't think it's worth it.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)