On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Xan Lopez wrote on Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:57:33PM CET:
> [...]
>> So, I used this and rewrote the link rule to use the @ syntax for ld
>> in passing the object file list. Unfortunately I seem to be hitting
>>
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 21:57 +0100, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> Any idea to bypass this whole mess?
>
> You can create one or more libxxx.a files from subsets of your objects,
> and link with those.
Yeah. We recently moved away fro
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> b) Any suggestion to workaround it in the meanwhile? We are thinking
>> of rewriting the link rule and passing ld a file with the list of
>> objects, since that seems to be supported.
>
> What are your portability requirements? Which syste
http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-autoconf@gnu.org/msg02266.html)
b) Any suggestion to workaround it in the meanwhile? We are thinking
of rewriting the link rule and passing ld a file with the list of
objects, since that seems to be supported.
Xan
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Perhaps a silly question: could it be easier to just post-process the
>> include of all the Plo files to get rid of the duplicates? Since the
>> vast majority of the data is duplicated among the files it seems a
>> reasonable thing to do.
>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> What I meant was, do they all do the same thing _in detail_ -- for
> instance, if one tracks system header dependencies and the other
> doesn't, then the latter will most likely be faster, but will have
> "reduced functionality." [Your investi
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> I haven't tested it personally, but I can ask. What I know is that
>> Chromium uses gyp, which on Linux generates Makefiles, and they claim
>> their null-build tim
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
> I haven't tested it personally, but I can ask. What I know is that
> Chromium uses gyp, which on Linux generates Makefiles, and they claim
> their null-build time is pretty much zero (not sure on which machine,
> though, so pe
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> If I'm right this means I've moved from having the vast majority of
>> the time in user CPU time to a 60/40 split, which I guess means by now
>> we are spending a lot of time stating files (?).
>
> Can you send sysperf output for this as w
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> You mentioned you have a sysprof profile, can you show it?
> My old laptop is really not in for webkit itself, and I don't have root
> on the other systems I'm testing on currently.
Sure thing, you can get it here: http://people.gnome.org/~
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Thanks for the data. This is a bug in GNU make. I'm working on a fix.
Hum, which part is the bug exactly?
Xan
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>
> Without the local hack to get rid of the -MP flag a null-build with
> that version of GNU make is ~40s. CVS HEAD gives ~26s (wow!), and CVS
> HEAD with the "get rid of -MP" hack gives ~14s. So definitely there's
>
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Before changing Automake or GNU make, can you first please post which
> GNU make version you are using on what system and file system exactly,
> and if you are not using the very latest GNU make, retry with that?
I'm using a CVS snapshot fr
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:47 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>> Are you talking about the time to process those empty rules that are
>> gone if you get rid of -MP or of the remaining 20 seconds?
>
> Both, I suppose. I imagine both have the same inefficiency (just more
> in the -MP case)...
Most of the CPU
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Xan Lopez writes:
>> I understand this can cause problems if, say, a file is removed from
>> the build tree or so, but it's very different to removing completely
>> dependency tracking (which indeed makes the null-
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 04:43 PM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> Alternatively, is there some well-known way to reduce either the size
>> or the processing time for the Makefile in huge automake projects?[1]
>
> Have you tried './conf
Hi,
First a bit of context: for the GTK+ port of WebKit
(www.webkitgtk.org) we are using autotools as our build system
(autoconf+automake+libtool, the whole lot). We have a *lot* of files,
so the resulting Makefile is about 9MB in size and takes, in my
system, about 55s to go through a null-build
17 matches
Mail list logo
