[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libtool and mkoctfile
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: libtool and mkoctfile |
Date: |
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:17:06 -0500 |
On 6-Nov-2009, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
| On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Thomas Weber
| <address@hidden> wrote:
|
| > I can only wonder that people argue about portability in one sentence,
| > yet don't care about totally different compilers and platforms in the
| > other sentences. You want portability? Use proven tools. And yes,
| > libtool is complex and actually pretty slow when run.
|
| This might be a drawback. How slow? Some packages require mkoctfile to
| be run a dozen times to build ...
I just timed two separate builds of Octave, one with the automake
patch and one without. I see (CPU seconds, approximately):
2900 user, 280 system without automake/libtool
2910 user, 300 system with
That includes 1175 invocations of "libtool: compile:" and 311 of
"libtool: link:".
So the change is really not significant, at least on a system where
running a shell script is fast. I don't know what the current state
of that is with the Msys shell on a Windows system.
jwe
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, (continued)
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Thomas Weber, 2009/11/05
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, John W. Eaton, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, John W. Eaton, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Marco Atzeri, 2009/11/06
- Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Benjamin Lindner, 2009/11/06
Re: libtool and mkoctfile, John W. Eaton, 2009/11/04
Re: libtool and mkoctfile, Søren Hauberg, 2009/11/04