Re: Slow compilation of guile-2.1.x

[Jan Synáček]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:47:08AM +0100, Jan Synáček wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:36 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> > Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:31:23AM +0100, Jan Synáček wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>
> [...]
>
>> > Are you building from scratch? Because then yes, 2.1.x is expected
>> > to bootstrap slowly [1]. The solution offered ATM is delivering a
>> > half-bootstrapped system [2].
>>
>> Yes, but even a small (about 3 modules and a few 100s LoC) project of
>> mine compiles about 3 times slower.
>
> You mean not bootstrapping the system but using a fully bootstrapped
> Guile to compile *your* stuff? Hmmm.

Yes. My project also uses guile-ncurses, which had been built using
2.1.4. Not sure if that matters.

>> > TL;DR the compiler has become much smarter, but also tougher to
>> > build (but read the refs anyway: they're a worthy read).
>> >
>> > regards
>> >
>> > [1] 
>> > https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/01/11/the-half-strap-self-hosting-and-guile
>> > [2] https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/02/04/guile-compiler-tasks
>>
>> Thank you, I wasn't aware of these. Good to know that it's not a bug.
>
> I'm far from being in the position to decide whether there's a bug, alas.
> Perhaps more knowledgeable folks could chime in: Is a factor of 3 when
> compiling to be expected?

-- 
Jan Synáček