* Xan Lopez wrote on Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 12:18:33AM CET:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
> wrote:
> >> If I'm right this means I've moved from having the vast majority of
> >> the time in user CPU time to a 60/40 split, which I guess means by now
> >> we are spending a lot of
On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Xan Lopez wrote:
I can believe automake is more portable than any of the other systems,
and that this is a factor that makes it comparatively slower. I think
an optional mode that generates optimized output for a subset of
setups (for instance, one that has GNU make) is a rea
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
For the remaining 14s, there is one more uuugly hack I can think of:
get rid of the recursive make invocation that is done in the 'all' rule.
The reason it exists is so $(BUILT_SOURCES) and 'autotoolsconfig.h' are
updated before the "normal" prerequisit
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> What I meant was, do they all do the same thing _in detail_ -- for
> instance, if one tracks system header dependencies and the other
> doesn't, then the latter will most likely be faster, but will have
> "reduced functionality." [Your investi
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> Do they actually do the same thing?
>
> Yes, we all build WebKit + the some testing tools. The set of files we
> build is not identical, since it changes by port, but the difference
> is negligible since most of the files are platform-independent
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> I haven't tested it personally, but I can ask. What I know is that
>> Chromium uses gyp, which on Linux generates Makefiles, and they claim
>> their null-build time is pretty much zero (not s
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
> I haven't tested it personally, but I can ask. What I know is that
> Chromium uses gyp, which on Linux generates Makefiles, and they claim
> their null-build time is pretty much zero (not sure on which machine,
> though, so perhaps that's only th
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Xan Lopez wrote:
> I haven't tested it personally, but I can ask. What I know is that
> Chromium uses gyp, which on Linux generates Makefiles, and they claim
> their null-build time is pretty much zero (not sure on which machine,
> though, so perhaps that's only the
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> If I'm right this means I've moved from having the vast majority of
>> the time in user CPU time to a 60/40 split, which I guess means by now
>> we are spending a lot of time stating files (?).
>
> Can you send sysperf output for this as w
* Xan Lopez wrote on Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:46:55PM CET:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Xan Lopez wrote:
> >
> > Without the local hack to get rid of the -MP flag a null-build with
> > that version of GNU make is ~40s. CVS HEAD gives ~26s (wow!), and CVS
> > HEAD with the "get rid of -MP" hack
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> You mentioned you have a sysprof profile, can you show it?
> My old laptop is really not in for webkit itself, and I don't have root
> on the other systems I'm testing on currently.
Sure thing, you can get it here: http://people.gnome.org/~
11 matches
Mail list logo
