Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: > > With this change, the whole of the build is done non-recursively in the > > top-level Makefile.am. > > This reduces the amount of overhead due to recursing into directories only > > to build one file. > > > > has raised a number of issues. I have submitted patches for the easy ones, > > but there are some that I cannot figure out alone. > > I would have to agree that if this came by the mailing list I would > have raised objections to it.
Same here. > I think the biggest benefit you'd normally get from it is reducing the > number of convenience libraries of code in separate subdirectories > since you have to wait for libtool to relink them all the time. That > point it moot here since there's just a single module with no > convenience libraries. > > Another typical benefit is waiting for make to fork itself repeatedly > to descend into subdirectories. I'd say unless you're building on arm > this is not a significant amount of build time nowadays. Right. Even on ARM, it's not exactly a bottleneck, since the compilation takes long enough that running make is hardly a profile hotspot. And even then, only so if you're rebuilding xf86-input-synaptics in a tight loop. > The other nice benefit from using non-recursive make is that when > you've only dirtied a single file in your tree, you don't need to wait > for make to walk the whole tree to rebuild. A single toplevel make > process has all the dependency info in the toplevel Makefile. IMO, > unless you're getting to a project the size of the xserver, this is a > not a significant amount of time. And if you're trying to use > non-recursive automake on a project as large and diverse as the > xserver, it would probably be a nightmare. It would, but it would make builds fast enough that it might, _might_ be worth a go there. It would mean a lot more care and feeding of our poor build system though, and would be a fair bit of work. > IMO, the benefits of non-recursive automake do not significantly > outweigh the added complexity. At least for xf86-input-synaptics, I agree. If it turns out to be useful enough that we should convert synaptics, then we should also convert all the other drivers. I agree that stuff like @DRIVER_NAME@_la_LTLIBRARIES is a bit over the top, but sharing build infrastructure between all the drivers is definitely a huge win, and I don't see a compelling enough argument for synaptics to go out on its own here. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
