On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Xan Lopez wrote on Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 09:57:33PM CET:
> [...]
>> So, I used this and rewrote the link rule to use the @ syntax for ld
>> in passing the object file list. Unfortunately I seem to be hitting
>>
On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 21:57 +0100, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> Any idea to bypass this whole mess?
>
> You can create one or more libxxx.a files from subsets of your objects,
> and link with those.
Yeah. We recently moved away fro
he files referenced in the file at once and it runs out of
descriptors... Not sure why it does not try to do that when passing
the files in the arg list though.
I guess I can try to generate a number of files instead of one, but
this is getting more complicated :/
Any idea to bypass this whole mess?
Xan
>
>
> Note this breaks on EBCDIC systems (yeah, I knew you didn't care).
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-autoconf@gnu.org/msg02266.html)
b) Any suggestion to workaround it in the meanwhile? We are thinking
of rewriting the link rule and passing ld a file with the list of
objects, since that seems to be supported.
Xan
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
this hack.
>
> Can you, just for the sake of measuring performance, edit the generated
> GNUmakefile and remove Automake's 'all' rule from it; something like
> sed -i '/^all: .*BUILT_SOURCES/,/^$/d' GNUmakefile
>
> It should really prove a big, not a small win, otherwise it's not worth
> looking at this further.
Indeed, it cuts the total time almost exactly in half. Will this also
go into the gnu-make mode or is it something we'd have to hack
locally?
Cheers,
Xan
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 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 tim
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 pe
ou send sysperf output for this as well, please? Thanks.
>
Here it is http://people.gnome.org/~xan/make2.txt.gz
>
> The makefile + included files that I've looked at (where not all of
> webkit is built) already weigh in at some 90 MB total size, the very
> bulk of which in
://people.gnome.org/~xan/make.txt.gz
Cheers,
Xan
>
> Thanks,
> Ralf
>
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Thanks for the data. This is a bug in GNU make. I'm working on a fix.
Hum, which part is the bug exactly?
Xan
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
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 gives ~14s. So definitely there's
>
ve the builddir in /dev/shm, since I don't think I
can fit the whole thing in RAM in my laptop. Hope it helps.
Thanks for all the help!
Xan
>
> Elsewhere, you wrote:
>> [1]: I found this thread,
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2003-12/msg00103.html, from
>
e whole
Makefile after is generated will very likely take a fraction of those
23s).
Alternatively, is there some well-known way to reduce either the size
or the processing time for the Makefile in huge automake projects?[1]
Cheers,
Xan
[1]: I found this thread,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/
ic that I can
improve things without directly hacking on GNU make.
Xan
>
> -miles
>
> --
> Cat is power. Cat is peace.
>
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 1:57 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Xan Lopez writes:
>> I understand this can cause problems if, say, a file is removed from
>> the build tree or so, but it's very different to removing completely
>> dependency tracking (which indeed makes the null-
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/03/2011 04:43 PM, Xan Lopez wrote:
>> Alternatively, is there some well-known way to reduce either the size
>> or the processing time for the Makefile in huge automake projects?[1]
>
> Have you tried './conf
e whole
Makefile after is generated will very likely take a fraction of those
23s).
Alternatively, is there some well-known way to reduce either the size
or the processing time for the Makefile in huge automake projects?[1]
Cheers,
Xan
[1]: I found this thread,
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/
18 matches
Mail list logo
