On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 01:24:05AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 07:12:04PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 09:54:01AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > > > The problem with automake+libtools is that it takes about twice as much > > > time as either scons, cmake or qmake in the 'building backend'. > > > > On linux I don't see any difference wrt the previous setup. > > Is thiss 'full recompile' or 'null make' or 'simple roundtrip'? > Also, do you use ccache?
Full recompile, starting with a fresh build tree and without ccache. This is with a dual core CPU [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 2Gb ram. > > It takes about 15 minutes to build everything from scratch on my new > > laptop. > > I.e. no ccache? If so, the compile times may outweigh the time spend on > libtools. That's not the case with ccache. I see that ccache performance is eavily dependent on the system. You gain a lot on linux, where autotools are already blazingly fast, only a bit on solaris sparc, where autotools are not that fast, and nothing on Windows, where autotools are..., well..., snailtools... So, ccache only helps who doesn't need help :( > > I wonder how would you feel if you had to build on cygwin, where > > it takes more than an hour on the same hardware... > > > > I back the request from Christian, and suggest that you revert your > > changes and work in a branch ;-) > > I do that on Friday if things have not stabilized until then. Until then > I would be grateful to get reports on what configuration exactly is not > working. Seems that it is ok now. I can statically link on both Windows and Linux (haven't tried on Solaris, still), even if on Windows I continue getting bogus warnings from libtool, that behaves as if it was building a shared library (maybe it is so because of the rpath argument). So, everything works, AFAIK. -- Enrico
