Bob Friesenhahn (2020/03/12 16:04 -0500): > One reason why some projects are discarding use of Autoconf (and moving to > CMake and Meson/Ninja) is due to how long it takes to execute a configure > script. Given modern multicore CPUs, it often takes as much (or more) time > to run the configure script than to compile the software. If configure can > select the fastest shell which works reliably, then Autoconf's reputation > will improve.
Is the time spent in the shell such a big part of configure's total execution time? I am also wondering how widely config.status is known by non-experts. I guess in the situation where the time spent ocnfiguring matters, e.g. when you are developing, running ocnfig.status would be enough. Sébastien.
