Hi Joe, others, * Joe Buck wrote on Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:01:49PM CEST: > > We really need something done about this problem, as it interferes > with our ability to efficiently develop GCC.
How many objects does libjava contain? Rather 100 or 1000? Do you need relinking because of command line length? > From: Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> *snip* > > I began by building the whole of libjava, and then using find to > delete all of *.o *.lo *.a *.la. I then timed rebuilding the library: *snip* > > Now, unless I've done something drastically wrong, it appears as if we > are spending 2/3 of our time in the libtool script. I know. I worked on that for Libtool HEAD and fixed it mostly (that is, for all decent platforms, not win32), for the case of many objects. Fixing win32 will require incorporation of something like Robert �gren's libtool-cache. It's my plan to do this (in the HEAD branch) after other pending work has settled. You could use libtool-cache as a temporary workaround. It's not foolproof, but for development that should be ok -- not for release. Using libtool HEAD should also work, but integration of that into gcc will require some work. You could help by convincing the other maintainers to allow me to backport my changes from HEAD to branch-2-0 (after Libtool-2.0.0 is out), or help with integration of a fool-proof libtool-cache like caching mechanism. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
