Re: "libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

Attila Kinali wrote: > If you care about sane tools, why do you use auto* and libtool > in the first place? Because converting X.Org's approximately 300 packages to anything else would be even more painful? (And believe me, I curse libtool regularly, and have had to find more ways to undo it's d

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Josh Triplett freedesktop.org> writes: > Thus, I wrote Dolt, a drop-in replacement for libtool's compilation > mode. Dolt runs any necessary system-specific or > configuration-specific logic as part of configure, writes out a simple > shell script "doltcompile"[1], and substitutes it for libtool

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

* Tor Lillqvist wrote on Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:54:35AM CEST: > It speeds up builds on Win32 very > nicely. http://libtool-cache.sourceforge.net/ I don't remember well; was libtool-cache more than marginally beneficial on non-w32 systems as well? > Maybe some libtool-cache-like functionality cou

Re: "libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:34:14 +0300 Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion, but given the choice between forking a > multi-thousand-line shell script and replacing it with a ten line shell > script, I think we'll stick with the one that isn't insane. If you care about

Re: "libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 05:12:48PM +0200, Attila Kinali wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:34:14 +0300 > Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion, but given the choice between forking a > > multi-thousand-line shell script and replacing it with a ten line shell > > script,

Re: "libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 04:23:52PM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote: > Uhm... a while ago we hit the same problem and did some research on the > issue and a diffent route by switching the shell used by libtool from > "bash" to "ksh93" and did some minor modifications (e.g. enable more > ksh93 builtin com

"libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

Josh Triplett wrote: [repost - somehow the first posting was rejected by some mailman lists... ;-( ] > Many packages use GNU autotools (automake and autoconf) to build, to > the point that "./configure && make" represents one of the most common > build procedures for Free Software packages. Librar

"libtool" performance... / was: Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build timesin half

Josh Triplett wrote: > > Many packages use GNU autotools (automake and autoconf) to build, to > the point that "./configure && make" represents one of the most common > build procedures for Free Software packages. Libraries using > autotools typically use GNU Libtool, partly because it works on a

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On 10 Apr 2008, at 02:18, Peter O'Gorman wrote: Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:57AM CEST: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: This is a list off shell functions that appear in the generated libtool script on my linux system (one of Ralf's pa

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Let me just point out another, old but apparently not well known, more portable imrovement on libtool, libtool-cache. libtool-cache doesn't replace libtool, but as can be guessed from its name, it just avoids running libtool if the actual shell commands that would be executed by libtool can be know

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:57AM CEST: >> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >>> This is a list off shell functions that appear in the generated libtool >>> script on my linux system (one of Ralf's patches is applied). Yes, we >>> could prob

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:57AM CEST: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> This is a list off shell functions that appear in the generated libtool >> script on my linux system (one of Ralf's patches is applied). Yes, we >> could probably move these around some t

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: This is a list off shell functions that appear in the generated libtool script on my linux system (one of Ralf's patches is applied). Yes, we could probably move these around some to get func_mode_compile closer to the top. The important thing is not ho

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> >> (using bash) >> $ for y in {1..100}; do echo "func_notused${y} () {" >> parse.sh; for x >> in {1..1}; do echo foo >> parse.sh; done; echo '}' >> parse.sh; >> done; echo 'echo Done' >> parse.sh >> > > It seems that the slo

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Peter O'Gorman wrote: (using bash) $ for y in {1..100}; do echo "func_notused${y} () {" >> parse.sh; for x in {1..1}; do echo foo >> parse.sh; done; echo '}' >> parse.sh; done; echo 'echo Done' >> parse.sh It seems that the slowest possible shell is selected by default

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote: >> | Since shell scripts are not compiled, the size of a shell script has >> | very little to do with its execution time. >> >> On the other hand, recent improvements in autoconf 2.62 proved that we >> were able to speed up testsuite pe

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote: >> | Since shell scripts are not compiled, the size of a shell script has >> | very little to do with its execution time. >> >> On the other hand, recent improvements in autoconf 2.62 proved that we >> were able to speed up testsuite pe

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bob Friesenhahn on 4/9/2008 7:01 PM: | There may be value to extracting these shell functions into separate | files which are sourced only when needed. This way the overhead of | parsing "linking" code is not encountered while compiling,

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Eric Blake wrote: > According to Bob Friesenhahn on 4/9/2008 11:15 AM: > | On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Josh Triplett wrote: > |> > |> I tested against 1.5.26. I'll give 2.2.2 a shot and see what I find. > |> However, when I looked at 2.2.2, it still seems to have a > |> multi-thousand-line shell script; d

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote: | Since shell scripts are not compiled, the size of a shell script has | very little to do with its execution time. On the other hand, recent improvements in autoconf 2.62 proved that we were able to speed up testsuite performance by more than 10% by merely

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bob Friesenhahn on 4/9/2008 11:15 AM: | On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Josh Triplett wrote: |> |> I tested against 1.5.26. I'll give 2.2.2 a shot and see what I find. |> However, when I looked at 2.2.2, it still seems to have a |> multi-thousand-li

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Hi Ross, * Ross Burton wrote on Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:44:40PM CEST: > > EDS with libtool 1.5.26-3 > > real 4m35.934s > EDS with libtool 2.1 (2.1a+cvs1.2525+20071016-1) > > real 4m10.648s > EDS with dolt > > real 3m40.974s OK, so we're already half-way there, and the speedup in Libtool 2

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wednesday 09 April 2008 03:34:18 am Josh Triplett wrote: > Meanwhile, modern systems such as GNU/Linux have reasonable library > mechanisms, and need relatively little of the machinery in libtool. > On these common systems, it would significantly improve build times to > avoid running that libto

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Josh Triplett wrote: I tested against 1.5.26. I'll give 2.2.2 a shot and see what I find. However, when I looked at 2.2.2, it still seems to have a multi-thousand-line shell script; do you just expect the benefit to come from the new shell-specific optimizations? Since she

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ross Burton wrote: I realise this isn't libtool 2.2, so I'm willing to believe there are further speedups. What I notice from your timings is that libtool 2.1 takes much less system time than libtool 1.5.26-3 but the user time is quite similar. The real time is surely mos

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: That gave the biggest speedup on > GNU/Linux (where forks are relatively cheap). > This entire message just goes to prove that I do not have a good memory. I had completely forgotten that you sped up compile mode

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

* Josh Triplett wrote on Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 06:02:36PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > Curious: can you please state which Libtool version you timed against, > > and if not 2.2.x, redo timing against 2.2.2? Not that I expect wonders, > > but I expect something better than what you measur

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Josh Triplett wrote: > I tested against 1.5.26. I'll give 2.2.2 a shot and see what I find. > However, when I looked at 2.2.2, it still seems to have a > multi-thousand-line shell script; do you just expect the benefit to > come from the new shell-specific optimizations? > Hi Josh, There are sp

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > can we limit followups to a subset of this impressive array of mailing > lists? Say, to ? That would be readable at > . > Thanks. Sure. I assumed that anyone wanting to respond would do so to the mailing l

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Ralf Wildenhues gmx.de> writes: > Curious: can you please state which Libtool version you timed against, > and if not 2.2.x, redo timing against 2.2.2? Not that I expect wonders, > but I expect something better than what you measured. I just tested this out on my laptop with Evolution Data Serve

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:34:18 -0700 >Thus, I wrote Dolt, a drop-in replacement for libtool's compilation >mode. Excellent, impressive :))) ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: Announcing Dolt, a drop-in Libtool replacement which cuts build times in half

Hello Josh, can we limit followups to a subset of this impressive array of mailing lists? Say, to ? That would be readable at . Thanks. * Josh Triplett wrote on Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 12:34:18PM CEST: > Libtool knows how to handle l