On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:34 AM, <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 09:47:08AM +0100, Jan Synáček wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:36 AM, <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> > Hash: SHA1 >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 08:31:23AM +0100, Jan Synáček wrote: >> >> Hello, > > [...] > >> > Are you building from scratch? Because then yes, 2.1.x is expected >> > to bootstrap slowly [1]. The solution offered ATM is delivering a >> > half-bootstrapped system [2]. >> >> Yes, but even a small (about 3 modules and a few 100s LoC) project of >> mine compiles about 3 times slower. > > You mean not bootstrapping the system but using a fully bootstrapped > Guile to compile *your* stuff? Hmmm.
Yes. My project also uses guile-ncurses, which had been built using 2.1.4. Not sure if that matters. >> > TL;DR the compiler has become much smarter, but also tougher to >> > build (but read the refs anyway: they're a worthy read). >> > >> > regards >> > >> > [1] >> > https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/01/11/the-half-strap-self-hosting-and-guile >> > [2] https://wingolog.org/archives/2016/02/04/guile-compiler-tasks >> >> Thank you, I wasn't aware of these. Good to know that it's not a bug. > > I'm far from being in the position to decide whether there's a bug, alas. > Perhaps more knowledgeable folks could chime in: Is a factor of 3 when > compiling to be expected? -- Jan Synáček
