[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: libtool optimization

From: Michel Briand
Subject: Re: libtool optimization
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:20:14 +0200

Bob Friesenhahn <address@hidden> - Tue, 21 Oct 2008
18:32:23 -0500 (CDT)

>On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Michel Briand wrote:
>> Honestly I wanted to do two optimizations.
>> Firstly, I've tested /bin/dash and seen that it's much faster
>> than /bin/bash on my normal sized project.
>> ->> is it possible to choose the shell in autogen ? That way users do
>> not have to bother to call configure like this ?
>If you did that then the configure script would likely only work on 
>your system.  If it only runs on your system, what's the point?

You don't see my point. In autogen I want to have a way to select a
different shell (for configure & libtool). I'm not saying that I'll
choose a shell that fails to run the tools or that I'll not ask the
user for the best shell available...

Furthermore you seems to indicate that Dash would not run configure ?
Should autoconf find the correct sed program for example (@SED@), it
could also find the best shell available, isn't it ?

>> Secondly, I wanted to optimize the way gcc is called ? Why does libtool
>> need to create a shell snippet for all source files ? A Makefile that
>> simply calls gcc for each source file is much much faster ;))))
>Libtool is for portably creating libraries.  If you only plan to 
>create libraries that work on your own computer, then you can 
>hard-code everything in a Makefile and skip using libtool.
Sure. No comment.

>Regardless, libtool 2.2 and latter has been shown to have minimal 
>impact on build times.


reply via email to

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