On 08/31/2012 08:42 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 08/31/2012 08:28 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: >>> Jim Meyering wrote: >>>> As expected, the build now seems faster. >>>> I haven't yet measured it. >>> >>> Not wanting to ask work of you but it would be great if when all was >>> said and done there was a posting of the build time that changed due >>> to the build infrastructure change from recursive to non-recursive >>> make. It would be an interesting datapoint. >>> >> FWIW, I'm helping with this conversion because I believe non-recursive >> builds offer improved clarity, correctness and reliability. The fact >> that they might also end up offering enhanced performance is just an >> extra (albeit valuable) perk, not a motivating factor. > > Of course, one of us will time it once it's all done. > We'll also need a NEWS entry, and I hope Stefano will write it. > > For reference, I look very favorably on converting all > packages to non-recursive make. Bison was the first GNU > project that I noticed doing this. I liked what I saw there > so much that I converted cppi's build system as a proof-of-concept. > > It's a lot smaller and simpler, so you can see better what's required > there. In spite of that, I'm sure it can be cleaned up even more. > An important (and big) step would be to enhance gnulib to create Makefile fragments that can be used in non-recursive packages.
I see tha, as of today, bison and cppi works around the gnulib limitation by *heavily* massaging its generated Makefile.am. Which is quite brittle and not at all scalable (albeit it certainly was the easiest and quickest way to implement the de-recursion of those package; and I must admit that, being in Akim's or Jim's place, I'd have done the same). Regards, Stefano
