Re: libtool and mkoctfile

[Benjamin Lindner]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On  6-Nov-2009, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
>
> | On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Thomas Weber
> | <address@hidden> wrote:
> | 
> | > I can only wonder that people argue about portability in one sentence,
> | > yet don't care about totally different compilers and platforms in the
> | > other sentences. You want portability? Use proven tools. And yes,
> | > libtool is complex and actually pretty slow when run.
> | 
> | This might be a drawback. How slow? Some packages require mkoctfile to
> | be run a dozen times to build ...
>
> I just timed two separate builds of Octave, one with the automake
> patch and one without.  I see (CPU seconds, approximately):
>
>   2900 user, 280 system   without automake/libtool
>   2910 user, 300 system   with
>
> That includes 1175 invocations of "libtool: compile:" and 311 of
> "libtool: link:".
>
> So the change is really not significant, at least on a system where
> running a shell script is fast.  I don't know what the current state
> of that is with the Msys shell on a Windows system.

It's slow on msys. But that's because running scripts in general is slow.
I don't think libtool is a particularily slow script in this case.
Anyway speed is not an issue here. Then it takes longer, so what?
As long as it works.

benjamin