On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote: > > > > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course, > > > > this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not > > > > sure we care much about distributing dynamic versions anyway. We could > > > > for example decide that shared is turned on only for development > > > > unix builds. > > > > > > Agreed. And I am not even sure of the usefulness of a dynamic build > > > when you gain 15 seconds or so. > > > > static: touch Text.cpp && time make: > > > > real 1m4.922s > > user 0m8.145s > > sys 0m2.404s > > > > dynamic: touch Text.cpp && time make: > > > > real 0m27.072s > > user 0m15.045s > > sys 0m1.552s > > Thank you for demonstrating that a dynamic build is slower than a > static one. Indeed, the real field gives the elapsed (real) time > between invocation of the command and its termination. This means > that it is a varying quantity depending on the system load. > The useful information comes from the user and sys fields and their > sum demonstrates that a static build is faster.
It was an unloaded system in both cases. I know what "real" and "user" means in theory and I couldn't care less. In practice, one takes 65 seconds to finish, and the other takes 27. I clearly prefer the 27 second version even if somebody thinks that the 65 seconds are "really only 8". > > So it reduces simple roundtrip times byh more than a factor of 2. > > > > Try again. > > Hrmpf. Try again. Andre'
