Re: libtool and mkoctfile

[Marco Atzeri]

--- Ven 6/11/09, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> ha scritto:

> Da: John W. Eaton <address@hidden>
> Oggetto: Re: libtool and mkoctfile
> A: "Jaroslav Hajek" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Data: Venerdì 6 novembre 2009, 13:17
> On  6-Nov-2009, Jaroslav Hajek
> wrote:
> 
> | On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Thomas Weber
> | <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> | 
> | > I can only wonder that people argue about
> portability in one sentence,
> | > yet don't care about totally different compilers and
> platforms in the
> | > other sentences. You want portability? Use proven
> tools. And yes,
> | > libtool is complex and actually pretty slow when
> run.
> | 
> | This might be a drawback. How slow? Some packages require
> mkoctfile to
> | be run a dozen times to build ...
> 
> I just timed two separate builds of Octave, one with the
> automake
> patch and one without.  I see (CPU seconds,
> approximately):
> 
>   2900 user, 280 system   without
> automake/libtool
>   2910 user, 300 system   with
> 
> That includes 1175 invocations of "libtool: compile:" and
> 311 of
> "libtool: link:".
> 
> So the change is really not significant, at least on a
> system where
> running a shell script is fast.  I don't know what the
> current state
> of that is with the Msys shell on a Windows system.
> 
> jwe
> 

Probably the slower case is cygwin, but it is a general 
script speed issue not specific to our case.

In cygwin we are already using automake/libtool for a lot of 
packages and usually it works fine.
>From my recent experience porting the other packages,
with automake/libtool the things are usually simpler.

I need just to clarify me the details of mixing 
static and dynamic libraries, but I do not expect
unbreakable issues.

Regards
Marco