Re: [Gnash-dev] Large-scale Makefile.am cleanup

[Andrew Guertin]

On 04/19/2011 08:27 AM, Rob Savoye wrote:
> On 04/19/11 04:12, Andrew Guertin wrote:
>
> > So it looks like you're mainly using it to hack around the normal
> > build method to gain speed.
>
>   Speed of development, not speed of an entire build.

Yes, exactly.

> > I call this a hack because it's fragile and requires a knowledgeable
> > developer to know when it's permissible and when a full rebuild is
> > required (e.g. in the case of any API/ABI changes), but when it is
> > used with caution, it does provide the speed benefit.
>
>    It's not as fragile as you would think. Developers have been using
> this trick for decades. When working on new code, like adding a new
> renderer, you spend *weeks* adding code primarily in one directory.
>
> > [...]
>
>    What I would like to see is further tweaks to the hybrid system we use
> now. All top level directories would be recursive, and all lower level
> convenience libraries would be non-recursive. I think this would keep us
> both happy.

I will write this option up for comparison (when I get to that point).

> > Would you be willing to change your workflow if a switch does speed
> > things up enough?
>
> [...] I'm open to trying your patches with an open mind. You'd
> need a substantial improvement [...]

Wouldn't expect it any other way :)

Note that the *improvement* will be limited to catching a full "make" up to 
where "make -C" is at now. I don't think it's possible to make the 
only-one-library-to-rebuild case go faster: by hand-applying the build rules, 
you've taken work away from the computer, and it's hard to go any faster than 
not doing work ;)

> > (Note that another option is to move to non-recursive, but keep all
> > the libraries as-is. This would allow your workflow to remain almost
> > identical. [librender would be a target in the top level (only)
> > makefile, so you would run something like "make libgnashrender.la"
> > instead of "make -C librender".] I don't recommend it, though; better
> > is to speed things up enough that hacks aren't necessary.)
>
>    Right, this is the other hack that gets used with non-recursive
> Makefiles, which I truly dislike. You need *more* knowledge, or have to
> read the Makefile. The other way is faster due to tab completion.

My shell does tab completion for makefile targets :) But point taken.

--
dolphinling
<http://dolphinling.net/>