[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: compile problem

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: compile problem
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:12:49 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (X11/20040615)

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> Okay.  But for a project built with `make -j', we still need
>> and _LT_COMPILER_C_O to understand each others' locks :-(
>>> [...]
>>>  Gary> Meant to ask, why doesn't AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE (conditionally if
>>>  Gary> necessary) simply invoke AM_PROG_CC_C_O?
>>> We know it's needed only after processing the files.
>> Why not invoke it anyway?
> If the compile script is unnecessarily used, then compilation will be
> even slower.  This seems particularly true for the Windows operating
> system where compilation using libtool already feels like compiling in
> molasses.  It seems that Windows is very slow at executing (fork/exec)
> new programs.

I'm not saying that the compile script should be used, just that the tests
to determine whether it might be needed are run as a matter of course.
Looking at the implementation of AM_PROG_CC_C_O, I see that it would need
a bit of refactoring to make that happen...

My feeling at the moment is that it would be a small price to pay for
simplifying the interface to automake (i.e. _not_ being sometimes told,
partway through the automake run, that you must change your
and start again at the aclocal stage).

I'd be happy to implement it as part of an overall patch to unify ..._C_O
locking emulation between automake and libtool.

Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,}
Research Scientist   ( '/
GNU Hacker           / )=
Technical Author   `(_~)_

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]