[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Conditional broken line in recipe
From: |
Alejandro Colomar |
Subject: |
Re: Conditional broken line in recipe |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Sep 2023 13:20:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.1 |
On 2023-09-03 13:11, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 2023-09-03 04:09, Paul Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2023-09-03 at 01:03 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>>> I was also wondering... is ONESHELL significant for performance?
>>> Does the reduction in number of shells speed up things?
>>
>> It might increase performance but that's not what it's for primarily,
>
> For those wondering, here's an experiment with a rule that runs a few
> shells (given appropriate values for certain variables):
>
>
> $ time make -j install DESTDIR=/tmp/foo Z=.gz LINK_PAGES=symlink >/dev/null
>
> real 0m6.229s
> user 0m17.820s
> sys 0m5.269s
> $ sed -i '/ONESHELL/s/^/#/' GNUmakefile
> $ time make -j install DESTDIR=/tmp/bar Z=.gz LINK_PAGES=symlink >/dev/null
>
> real 0m8.511s
> user 0m23.823s
> sys 0m7.511s
>
>
> It's not orders of magnitude, but it might be interesting to cut a
> 25%, considering no obvious pitfalls (when you overcome the SHELL
> errors, that is :D). For rules with just 1 canned recipe, the times
> didn't change.
>
> Here's the rule I used (I chose it because it's the most complex rule
> in the Makefile, as it has 3 canned recipes):
>
>
> $(_manpages):
> $(info INSTALL $@)
> <$< \
> $(SED) $(foreach s, $(MANSECTIONS), \
> -e '/^\.so /s, man$(s)/\(.*\)\.$(s)$$, $(notdir
> $(man$(s)dir))/\1$(man$(s)ext)$(Z),') \
> | $(INSTALL_DATA) -T /dev/stdin $@
> ifeq ($(LINK_PAGES),symlink)
> if $(GREP) '^\.so ' <$@ >/dev/null; then \
> $(GREP) '^\.so ' <$@ \
> | $(SED) 's,^\.so \(.*\),../\1,' \
> | $(XARGS) -I tgt $(LN) -fsT tgt $@; \
> fi
> endif
> ifeq ($(Z),.bz2)
> if ! $(TEST) -L $@; then \
> $(BZIP2) $(BZIP2FLAGS) <$@ \
> | $(SPONGE) $@; \
> fi
> else ifeq ($(Z),.gz)
> if ! $(TEST) -L $@; then \
> $(GZIP) $(GZIPFLAGS) <$@ \
> | $(SPONGE) $@; \
> fi
> else ifeq ($(Z),.lz)
> if ! $(TEST) -L $@; then \
> $(LZIP) $(LZIPFLAGS) <$@ \
> | $(SPONGE) $@; \
> fi
> else ifeq ($(Z),.xz)
> if ! $(TEST) -L $@; then \
> $(XZ) $(XZFLAGS) <$@ \
> | $(SPONGE) $@; \
> fi
> endif
>
>
>
>> at least not in my opinion. It's there for people who want to use
>> shells other than POSIX sh as their SHELL value,
>
> Well, my SHELL is not the POSIX sh, as I'm using bash(1), but I get
> it's still POSIX-sh-like, not python. :)
>
>> where it's not so easy
>> to create an entire script on a single line and using backslashes.
>
> Can we really call it script if it's invoked via sh -c? It's more
> like a command line. :)
>
> Jokes apart, can you put an example of such a scenario? I'm not
> imagining it.
Never mind; a python script could be it.
>
>
> BTW, apart from fixing the SHELL (which was a good thing, anyway),
> the only change I needed was to remove the '+' from a couple of
> recipes (and keep only the first one). Not a big deal. Most rules
> work without modification.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alex
>
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Conditional broken line in recipe, Paul Smith, 2023/09/02
Re: Conditional broken line in recipe, Bahman Movaqar, 2023/09/03