Hi Stephan, Am Wed, 17 Nov 2010 01:01:11 +0100 schrieb Stephan Beal <[email protected]>:
> Wow! And all this time i thought Make was going out of style! (Not > that i'd stray from it, but i tend to be in the minority of my peers > when it comes to preferred toolchains.) Well, we are specifically using GNU make and its $(eval ) and $(call ) functions extensively, using GNU make to actually write a GObject-like object-oriented syntax. There is a new blog post on how this looks like: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/gbuild_how_to_migrate_a > > Comments welcome! > i can't express how surprised i am by this, given the size and scope > of OpenOffice. That will certainly provide some interesting technical > challenges, and should prove to be an interesting use case for GNU > Make. > > Good luck! :) Thank you. We are rather confident about it. We already have more than a fourth of OpenOffice.org's C++ part in it (counting by #include statements and by LOC according to wc). Some numbers: - 1967 c/c++ files are compiled by the system (total in OpenOffice.org: ~15000 including some "external projects" that use their own build system, for comparison: Firefox 3.6.12 ~6000) - 15430 targets are handled by the system (grepping for "File has been updated." in the make -p output.) These are mostly header files as dependencies. Once you have build that, it takes GNU make 5.3 seconds when re-run to make sure all files are up to date. 5.0 seconds of that are parsing the dependency files (a whopping 84MB). Running make in callgrind shows make spends 30% of the total time in the function find_char_unqoute in this case. The build system is currently supported on at least Linux, Linux 64-Bit, Solaris Intel, Solaris Sparc, Windows(*), OSX -- likely with more to follow. Best Regards, Bjoern (*) Windows is slow as usual: the noop build takes ~10 seconds there. _______________________________________________ Help-make mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-make
