From: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org, Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org>
Subject: Re: general comments about gnulib
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 23:11:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2704683.Hb787fYIGj@omega> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <111e3305-4023-415b-3631-653b87a09e2c@cs.ucla.edu>
Paul Eggert wrote:
> I must say that I am starting to reach my limits in debugging this sort
> of thing. We have quite a pyramid of hacks here, involving more than
> just the usual multilevel combination of make, m4, sh, and sed along
> with Git submodules etc.
Yes, these GL_GNULIB_* variables whose name depends on the gnulib-tool
invocation require even more attention and care during problem analysis.
And when developing patches in this area, things are so complex that I
need a written-up plan, because it's impossible to keep the details in
memory.
> And 'gnulib-tool', 'configure'
> and 'make check' are so verrryy slow; to find the commit that caused the
> problem, I had to run 'git bisect' overnight because my circa-2005
> Solaris 10 sparc machine is not as fast as modern machines. This is a
> long way from my traditional way of developing where I edited a Makefile
> and typed 'make' (and that was already too slow!).
It's similar on a more modern machine (with GNU grep):
time ./bootstrap 99 sec.
time ./configure 33 sec.
time make 18 sec.
time make check 114 sec.
------------------ --------
TOTAL 264 sec.
Yes, a build cycle of 4 minutes requires a different kind of developing.
In these situations, I typically prepare a script that I can run 100 times,
and turn to other things while the script is running.
Speeding up 'gnulib-tool' would not help much in this situation. It might reduce
the build cycle from 4 minutes to 3 minutes (if it were highly optimized),
but that does not change the basic situation.
> I don't have a solution to this problem, and to some extent am just venting.
It's OK. That's what a mailing list is for :)
Bruno
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-13 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-10 7:38 Interference between two installations of gnulib Reuben Thomas
2021-04-11 19:32 ` Bruno Haible
2021-04-12 7:50 ` Reuben Thomas
2021-04-17 15:17 ` Bruno Haible
2021-04-18 11:16 ` Bruno Haible
2021-06-13 17:41 ` Paul Eggert
2021-06-13 20:55 ` Bruno Haible
2021-06-13 21:11 ` Bruno Haible [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2704683.Hb787fYIGj@omega \
--to=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=bug-gnulib@gnu.org \
--cc=eggert@cs.ucla.edu \
--cc=rrt@sc3d.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).