From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 23 01:29:07 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A43916A41F; Wed, 23 May 2007 01:29:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91.asp.att.net [204.127.203.211]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF89813C448; Wed, 23 May 2007 01:29:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@math.missouri.edu) Received: from laptop2.montlan (12-216-253-187.client.mchsi.com[12.216.253.187]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with ESMTP id <20070523012905m9100rsmh5e>; Wed, 23 May 2007 01:29:05 +0000 Message-ID: <465398E0.40404@math.missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 20:29:04 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070505 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pav Lucistnik References: <465291FB.4010901@math.missouri.edu> <20070522071941.GB59910@xor.obsecurity.org> <4652FFB4.8060107@math.missouri.edu> <1179846295.52353.27.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <4653349D.7080608@math.missouri.edu> <46533D66.1070305@math.missouri.edu> <1179868612.83498.6.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <1179869940.83498.9.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070522165525.S52261@math.missouri.edu> <1179871899.83498.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070522172627.A52261@math.missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20070522172627.A52261@math.missouri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: gnome@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: More speed increases for make-ing ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 01:29:07 -0000 Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > >> Stephen Montgomery-Smith p?e v ?t 22. 05. 2007 v 16:56 -0500: >> >>>> I have generated two INDEXes, one with the patch and one without. >>> They >>>> are identical, the timings: >>>> >>>> INDEX-orig >>>> real 16m32.761s >>>> user 18m36.802s >>>> sys 8m38.610s >>>> >>>> INDEX-ddd >>>> real 16m34.620s >>>> user 17m25.976s >>>> sys 8m46.333s >> >>> Sorry it didn't work out. Thanks for trying it. >> >> Don't get me wrong - the minute saved here is good enough reason to >> apply that patch. >> >>> Could you try the "shell" one also? I got the impression it was a bit >>> faster. >> >> Can you send me the patch? > > Yes. In the same place as the previous one you put: > > .ifdef _USE_GNOME > _USE_GNOME!=(for i in ${_USE_GNOME}; do ${ECHO_CMD} $$i; done) | sort -u > .endif > > I'm going to try it out myself also to see if it is faster. I tried it out. On my rather fast computer, I am getting similar times. The non-shell patch seems slightly better, but there is not much between that and the shell patch. Both patches give something like 7% speed improvements over the original. It only potentially speeds up gnome ports, and then only a few of them like alacarte, so even if it dramatically speeds those few up, the average speed up over all ports will not be so great. Like I said earlier, overall improvement is noticeable albeit not dramatic. Stephen