On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 05:56:26PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Zdenek" == Zdenek Kabelac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Zdenek> Am I the only one who is noticing constant slowdown of > Zdenek> makefile.am processing > > Do you mean running automake or running make?
Well as I've said - checkout the speed of 'automake' generartion for avifile project - libtoolize,aclocal, autoheader, autoconf are slow as well - but automake beats them all as it's as slow as all of them together. I don't think I'm doing some bad - also I'm trying to keep it compatible across many version of auto* tools so it's not using the latest extensions of automake. > Zdenek> it's really getting crazy - 9MB just for Makefiles... > > That is a bit absurd, though of course it depends on the layout and > complexity of your project. the size of after with (left column - uptodate Debian Unstable): autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.53 automake (GNU automake) 1.6.3 libtoolize (GNU libtool) 1.4.2a right column - old Debian Potato: (which is also noticable faster) Autoconf version 2.13 automake (GNU automake) 1.4 libtoolize (GNU libtool) 1.3.3 make maintainer-clean - ~ 9835KB 8401KB autogen.sh - ~11865KB 9237KB configure - ~16356KB 10689KB so - ok it's not 9 byt almost 6.5MB but it's still unreal - the project has 10MB of sources and auto* staff will take just over 65% just for Makefiles to be able to compile project - there is really something wrong within whole auto* architecture. > I'd say that we care, but we just haven't prioritized it very highly. Well I guess you all have PIV 2.5GHz boxes - but I could assure you that auto* tools are becoming unusable on 400MHz Celerons even with 256MB of memory - it takes ages to regenerate configure and Makefiles. > My perception is that the complaints we see are about not having a > smooth upgrade path, followed by feature requests. I haven't tried to > actually measure that perception against reality. Also there are Well you really should try it - it's really becoming a monster - and when you take into account how much slower the gcc is becoming (especialy for compilation of C++ projects) I'm starting to think that Linux has been infiltrated with M$ people - as I have access to many various intallations I could compare the project compilation speed on various setups - and while 400MHz with old Potato and gcc-2.95.2 is just fine - the current auto* and gcc3.2 is just something unreal and after all they both have to produce the same exectable... > always complaints about the complexity of the system, which are > justified but hard to derive patches from. I've proposed several times few things which would certainly drasticaly improve the speed - though they are for different parts of auto* tools project - there were some reactions - but so far non of them were realized and there is not visible any progress here (and as I've said before the whole auto* stuff is getting constanly slower and more space consuming - not mentining the problems with backward compatibility). -- .''`. Zdenek Kabelac kabi@{debian.org, users.sf.net, fi.muni.cz} : :' : Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz} `. `' Modern processors are the most advanced heating systems around. `- www.tomshardware.com