[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: address@hidden: libjava build times]

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: address@hidden: libjava build times]
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 18:30:57 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

Hi Joe, others,

* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:01:49PM CEST:
> We really need something done about this problem, as it interferes
> with our ability to efficiently develop GCC.

How many objects does libjava contain?  Rather 100 or 1000?  Do you
need relinking because of command line length?

> From: Richard Henderson <address@hidden>
> I began by building the whole of libjava, and then using find to 
> delete all of *.o *.lo *.a *.la.  I then timed rebuilding the library:
> Now, unless I've done something drastically wrong, it appears as if we
> are spending 2/3 of our time in the libtool script.

I know.  I worked on that for Libtool HEAD and fixed it mostly (that is,
for all decent platforms, not win32), for the case of many objects.
Fixing win32 will require incorporation of something like Robert Ă–gren's
libtool-cache.  It's my plan to do this (in the HEAD branch) after other
pending work has settled.

You could use libtool-cache as a temporary workaround.  It's not
foolproof, but for development that should be ok -- not for release.
Using libtool HEAD should also work, but integration of that into gcc
will require some work.  You could help by convincing the other
maintainers to allow me to backport my changes from HEAD to branch-2-0
(after Libtool-2.0.0 is out), or help with integration of a fool-proof
libtool-cache like caching mechanism.


reply via email to

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