[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool performance status
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: libtool performance status |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:18:34 -0500 (CDT) |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
To put some sort of proof to my claims, here's what I get building GM
unoptimized (CFLAGS=-g) on GNU/Linux with Libtool 2.2.2. and current
master (all timings best of three):
[ stuff removed ]
Looks like a small but definite improvement to me. :-)
Good! With libtool 2.2.X I am really not noticing all that much
overhead for users to complain about. There is not enough time to
make a mad dash to the coffee machine, much less make it back in the
time spent by libtool. Many of the functions that libtool does are
necessary. Even a total dolt could eventually come to realize this.
Note that I have not tested on the XO laptop (http://www.laptop.org/)
to know what the actual impact is on children using libtool in
disadvantaged countries with pedal or solar power. I know that the
FSF does support this project since they had an XO laptop in their
booth.
Also note that there is only 1.05s of unaccounted-for elapsed time, also
Probably just a difference in how the OS performs its accounting.
Hmm. That may or may not be libtool's fault, though; linking in itself
isn't so cheap, I/O-wise.
Can you please check whether
libtool --tag=CXX --config
is identical for each of the builds you timed?
It is really not as easy as you presume for me to relibtoolize
GraphicsMagick for testing. I don't maintain many different autotools
installs and with 70+ builds simultaneously sharing one source tree
such changes become tedious and time consuming.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/