Jason King wrote: > On 9/12/07, Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason King wrote: > > > On 9/12/07, Alexander Kolbasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > It would be great if you can participate in this work. What are your > > > > primary > > > > interests? What are you thinking off? > > > > > > I really liked the idea (obviously this would probably have to be done > > > in a gradual fashion) of the recursive-make-is-bad approach -- i.e. > > > generate the complete dependency tree and allow dmake to go wild with > > > it. That should I think expose all opportunities for parallelism. > > > > AFAIK this will not work as you would expect... make&&dmake scale badly > > if you add more and more make rules&&targets, e.g. the time to parse the > > makefile and ".make.state" becomes exponentially worse as seen with > > libast's Makefile.com which is very large and needs almost 45sec just > > for reading on my old SPARC. If you put more entries into a single > > Makefile this will IMO kill all improvements unless you call this > > Makefile only a few times during the build. > > Actually the idea would be you call it exactly once for the build and > that's it instead of doing recursive calls.
What will happen if I only want to rebuild a tiny subdir (like usr/src/lib/libdll/) - would the whole giant all-in-one Makefile be read, too (http://src.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=&defs=&refs=&path=Makefile&hist=&project=%2Fonnv says there are 7447 files called "Makefile" - if we put all of them in one large Makefile and each chunk needs 0.5sec to read... imagine how lot it will take...) ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
