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

Re: Make, make, make. . .

Pierre Phaneuf wrote:

>> Its author bases the article on an example of a badly structured directory
>> hierarchy. It's true that in such a case (recursive) make has severe

>and a few other people converted the build system of Mozilla to a
>non-recursive one with amazing improvements in build time. Doing the CVS

I can't say anything about this, but you know the times I measured witl
LibPPlay. For a comparison I did the same with LibGGI (2.0b2.1).

$ time make  // after a "make; make clean" to store things in cache
real    4m30.490s
user    3m5.450s
sys     1m5.320s

$time make   // again, after everything is compiled
real    0m1.842s
user    0m1.070s
sys     0m0.620s

So the make overhead is neglible. Some stats:
72 Makefile.ams
4 levels max. directory depth
3 levels average dir depth
353 source files
59685 LOC total
1622323 Bytes of code total

Mozilla is of course quite a bit larger, but the above behavior should also
scale to thet size.

Well, ok. short form: I haven't yet encountered any problems with recursive
makefiles, so I'm still not convinced that they're bad. But that doesn't
really matter, right? :)

Christian Reiniger
Coordinator/Coder, PenguinPlay (http://sunsite.auc.dk/penguinplay/)
Coordinator,       LGDC        (http://sunsite.auc.dk/lgdc/)

I see no reason to stand here and be insulted. -Spock

To unsubscribe, e-mail: linuxgames-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: linuxgames-help@sunsite.auc.dk