Hi,
make-3.79.1, built on a recent glibc snapshot, links with the shared
library librt, but doesn't any symbol from this library! Of course this
costs startup time.
The reason is that the function file_timestamp_now() in file.c uses
clock_gettime, but that block depends on
if (FILE_TIMESTA
Hi,
make-3.79.1, built on a recent glibc snapshot, links with the shared
library libutil, but doesn't any symbol from this library! Of course
this costs startup time.
The reason is the AC_FUNC_GETLOADAVG macro. It checks for getloadavg
in -lutil. Now glibc-2.2 has getloadavg in libc, but it als
%% Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bh> make-3.79.1, built on a recent glibc snapshot, links with the shared
bh> library librt, but doesn't any symbol from this library! Of course this
bh> costs startup time.
bh> The reason is that the function file_timestamp_now() in file.c uses
| Hi,
|
| make-3.79.1, built on a recent glibc snapshot, links with the shared
| library libutil, but doesn't any symbol from this library! Of course
| this costs startup time.
|
| The reason is the AC_FUNC_GETLOADAVG macro. It checks for getloadavg
| in -lutil. Now glibc-2.2 has getloadavg in
Paul D. Smith writes:
> Seems like any decent compiler would omit this code! Since Linux is
> using GCC, I would double-expect that. Maybe it only happens when you
> build with optimization on?
No compiler is required to omit "if (0)" code, and gcc indeed doesn't
omit it if -O is not given. Th
%% Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bh> Paul D. Smith writes:
>> Seems like any decent compiler would omit this code! Since Linux is
>> using GCC, I would double-expect that. Maybe it only happens when you
>> build with optimization on?
bh> No compiler is required to omit "i
Paul D. Smith writes:
> it would be interesting to see if make included a reference to
> libutil.so if compiled with -O.
Yes, it did. I verified using "ldd ./make" that it had a reference to
libutil.so before my patch, and that with my patch, the reference was
gone.
Bruno
