[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: libtool optimization

From: Kyle Sallee
Subject: Re: libtool optimization
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:28:55 -0700

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> wrote:

> first off, please do not top-post.  Thank you.

Had no idea what that was at first.
You prefer that retorts follow quotes.
No problem.

> And there is little point in
> complaining about 1.5.x speed without even trying out 2.2.6.

I agree.
However, I am not complaining about speed.
I am eagerly awaiting more sources to transition from
older libtool to newer libtool.
I wish that would go faster.
Okay, maybe I am complaining about speed.  :)

> I'm not sure what your discussion is supposed to lead to.

Nearly the entire point of my previous emails
was to specify that although dash is a faster shell for some uses
if libtool was made to run under dash
then libtool might not run as fast.
I wanted to spare the eager dash fans
from allocating the time and effort to port libtool to dash
if the outcome would become incommensurate with expectations.

I entered the conversation, merely because I did some various speed tests
with dash to discover where dash might be a better choice than bash.
If I did not have that data then I would not have replied.

Consequently, my message is not so much about libtool
as it is about what dash might be good for.
dash is a good choice for running small quick scripts.
However, I do not want to fuel an unrelated thread
about dash on the libtool email list.
But someone had a good thought to wonder and express
the idea about whether libtool performance
could be improved by using dash as an interpreter.

Thanks for libtool and making it better.

reply via email to

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