On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For all dolt junkies, and whoever claims autotools and esp. libtool > are performance hogs: yes, they are still not the fastest thing in > the world. But we are getting better: > > As an example, I built the ompi/ subdirectory of OpenMPI on a two-way > GNU/Linux system using bash, with > 1) Autoconf 2.61, Automake 1.10.1, Libtool 1.5.26, > 2) git master versions of same tools, > > doing > a) a full 'make -j3', > b) measuring just build system overhead, which in case of (2) is pretty > well approximated with > \time make -k -j3 LIBTOOLFLAGS=-n am__mv=: > and in case of (1) involves placing a fake 'mv' program early in $PATH.
Just for a data point, here is the same experiment on xserver git with git/old autotools and with/without dolt. This was basically single run of each test, so I'm sure there's tons of statistical error. I did do this while the box was otherwise idle, though. old autotools (full build): real 2m59.809s user 3m25.916s sys 1m52.775s old autotools + dolt (full build): real 2m3.060s user 2m50.078s sys 0m38.099s old autotools (dry run): real 1m13.512s user 0m46.539s sys 1m23.739s old autotools + dolt (dry run): real 0m6.719s user 0m8.574s sys 0m2.389s git autotools (full build): real 1m58.631s user 2m58.349s sys 0m30.855s git autotools + dolt (full build): real 1m51.437s user 2m48.725s sys 0m26.904s git autotools (dry run): real 0m16.292s user 0m21.050s sys 0m5.069s git autotools + dolt (dry run): real 0m7.106s user 0m8.859s sys 0m2.615s So, it seems that the autotools have improved dramatically. Well done. This is a Fedora 9 system, so "old" autotools is autoconf-2.61, automake-1.10.1 and libtool-1.5.24. I had to patch dolt a bit to get the dry run behavior. Basically, just prepend the actual command with : when -n was passed. -- Dan _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool