On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 03:19:10PM -0700, Brian Ingerson wrote: > On 16/08/02 20:52 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, it's actually MakeMaker silently dropping anything > > it doesn't think is a library from the LIBS line. So it's not actually > > Inline at fault. If this is the correct cause, I'm still not sure if it > > helps, as I don't know of a workaround. > Extending this thought, I may want to skip the MakeMaker process altogether > and simply invoke the compiler directly. Since Inline uses MakeMaker in a > fixed fashion, this might be worth it, at least in the general case. I think > that most of the "compile time" that Inline users experience is from > MakeMaker setup. Inline only uses MakeMaker to compile 1 XS file into 1 C file into 1 shared object, doesn't it? It's not using most of MakeMaker's functionality. Invoking the compiler in a more direct fashion would also avoid make. So it would allow much better error diagnostics. > On the other hand, the beauty of Inline is that it has always just automated > the safest build scenario. It inherits both the robustness and the > inadequacies of the tools it glues together. > > On the other hand, perhaps it's time for some optimizations. Wasn't the first of those hands supposed do be "on one hand"? :-) I don't know much about Module::Build (apart from seeming to remember that it uses YAML), but would it make more sense to have Inline invoke Module::Build to do its dirty work? That feels like it avoids re-inventing the wheel, or at least re-inventing the dirty bits that involve coercing the C compiler into compiling things. Nicholas Clark -- Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
