httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: DSO Patch 1 of 3 (+ commentary!)
Date Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:25:08 GMT

In article <200003251434.BAA14099@silk.apana.org.au> you wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:40:06 +0100, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>Here are a few impressions from a sample source tree where a dummy application
>>is linked against a few dummy DSO modules (TYPE=libtool triggers the build
>>process via GNU libtool, TYPE=dsotool triggers my dsotool based build
>>process):
>>
>>| $ time make TYPE=libtool >/dev/null 2>&1
>>| real    0m3.140s
>>| user    0m0.804s
>>| sys     0m2.043s
>>| 
>>| $ time make TYPE=dsotool >/dev/null 2>&1
>>| real    0m0.703s
>>| user    0m0.207s
>>| sys     0m0.175s
> 
> Cool, I'm not the only one who finds libtool excruciatingly slow. EG,
> on my K6-2/450 making a single module (say a simple one like mod_asis)
> takes over 9 seconds. Less than 1 sec is the gcc -c, the rest is
> libtool, and this is in static mode!

Yes, libtool is fine if you compile just a single library. Here one
usually doesn't care very much. But in an application which compiles a
lot of DSO modules, libtool's execution speed is really horrible and
annoying. The project for which I currently write will depend extremely
on DSO modules, so I actually couldn't accept libtool already for this
reason.
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message