| 1 |
Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>Hi All, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>Thought some people may be interested in this email from the dietlibc |
| 6 |
>mailing list. This is one of the reasons we don't use "make" for our |
| 7 |
>ports system. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>----- Forwarded message from Felix von Leitner <leitner@××××.de> ----- |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>To: dietlibc@××××.de |
| 12 |
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:45:47 +0200 |
| 13 |
>From: Felix von Leitner <leitner@××××.de> |
| 14 |
>Subject: Why make(1) sucks |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
snipped |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>I checked in that script as contrib/static.pl. It will write the new |
| 20 |
>Makefile to sMakefile. I expected a noticeable performance increase in |
| 21 |
>make after the first part was done (remove wildcard and patsubst), but |
| 22 |
>the pause increased to 7.5 seconds on my Athlon 900. Huh? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
snipped |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
>So I did an strace and found out that every occurrance of $(OBJDIR) |
| 28 |
>prompted make to recalculate $(ARCH), i.e. run uname and sed! |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
This is obviously a problem with GNU Make, and can be fixed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>Now that I see why make sucks, I'm working on a solution. The obvious |
| 34 |
>solution is to simply run make again setting MYARCH to something. When |
| 35 |
>I do that with the static dependencies, make takes 0.08 seconds to |
| 36 |
>notice that it does not have to do anything. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>Felix |
| 39 |
> |
Archives