Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:04:29 +0200
>Hi Michel, Bob, > >* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:26:58PM CEST: >> >> Current libtool still uses the shell that Autoconf chooses for it. >> However, if you have a faster shell which actually works (e.g. dash) you >> can specify it via the CONFIG_SHELL environment variable prior to >> running the configure script. > >Actually, you have to specify it twice, unfortunately: > CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/bash /bin/bash ./configure [OPTIONS...] > >As to which shell is best, it's not so clear as it might look at first. >dash and ksh are faster than bash for some packages, but when it comes >to large packages with many objects, the improved appending (var+=val) >implemented in bash >= 3.2 really starts to make a difference, and other >shells will be slower. > >Using vendor /bin/sh on, say, some AIX releases, is asking for trouble. >That thing is seriously inefficient, in that for example the Autoconf >testsuite will take days with /bin/sh, but only a couple of hours with >a sane shell. > >Cheers, >Ralf Honestly I wanted to do two optimizations. Firstly, I've tested /bin/dash and seen that it's much faster than /bin/bash on my normal sized project. ->> is it possible to choose the shell in autogen ? That way users do not have to bother to call configure like this ? Secondly, I wanted to optimize the way gcc is called ? Why does libtool need to create a shell snippet for all source files ? A Makefile that simply calls gcc for each source file is much much faster ;)))) Michel -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile. _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
