Re: Faster install for libtool outputs.

[Jim Meyering]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:

> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:23:45PM CEST:
>>
>> Sigh, this was overly optimistic.  With libtool libraries, the
>> eventual need to relink at install time requires that the ordering
>> is exactly the same as given in the Makefile.am lines.
>>
>> This is because automake is not smart enough to translate *_LIBADD
>> settings into install-order dependencies, so it has to rely on the
>> developer listing libraries in correct install order.  Luckily that
>> coincides with build order requirements, at least when all libraries
>> are listed in the same primary.
>>
>> So we only get a small advantage out of ltlib: passing multiple
>> nobase_ libraries to be installed in the same directory can still
>> be done at once, as libtool will treat them in the order given.
>
> Fixed thusly.
>
> BTW, I am really grateful for the fact that Automake has so many
> regression tests.  Otherwise, I'm sure many more such issues would
> go unnoticed at first; I regularly find problems with 'make check'
> when working on a patch.
>
> One downside of the large test suite is the time it takes to complete.
> Since there are lots of instances of $sleep in it, I've found it helpful
> to use a munged version of coreutils' check.mk for running tests in
> parallel.  Hmm, maybe that will push me to eventually finish its
> inclusion into Automake proper.

If not, please share your munged check.mk patch.
I too find it hard to wait for the tests, and as such,
sometimes do not even run them.  Especially with more and more
multi-core systems these days, parallelizing is important.