Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:31:17 +0400 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru Cc: freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/132615: [patch] x11/libX11: work aroung parsing bug in Bash 4.0 Message-ID: <20090426013117.919bc3a5.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <QpnYIANqKGjT/S/%2BLc0kOj/%2BG74@z6rvab04C8MpQhZ/UqYvhU4fxRI> References: <200904242010.n3OKA41e084949@freefall.freebsd.org> <1240605576.2142.47.camel@balrog.2hip.net> <QpnYIANqKGjT/S/%2BLc0kOj/%2BG74@z6rvab04C8MpQhZ/UqYvhU4fxRI>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:49:01 +0400 Eygene Ryabinkin <rea-fbsd@codelabs.ru> mentioned: > Stanislav, good day. > > > Stanislav Sedov wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 20:10 +0000, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > > > I'd say that 45 seconds (24.5%) speedup worth some patching. > > > > > > Any thoughts 'bout this? > > > > I think we could try to replace the libtool by our own stripped-down > > implementation that will be even simpler than dolt. If dolt is able to > > reduce the compilations speed by about one forth, then with a FreeBSD > > specific libtool replacement the imporvement may be even better. > > Well, dolt replaces only the 'compile' mode of libtool and doltcompile > is a rather simple script that isn't specific to any operating system, > it just needs Linux, FreeBSD or Darwin. The script is small and most of > speedup lives here -- libtool is an enormous beast that checks a load of > things and spawns many external tools. So, for the compilation mode, > the only thing to do is to try to replace Bash script dolt with native > executable and try to estimate gains. Will try to play with this. > > As to the other modes, libtool is still used, no magic here. And here > we can do something beefy, because, once again, libtool is an enormous > beast. Will try to draft something as well. > That would be really great! Thanks for working on this. > > As a benefit we can also stop installing .la and .a library files. > > .la -- may be. But why do you want to eradicate .a's? People should > still be able to link in libraries statically, aren't they? Sure. But in some cases it is questionable. Probably, we can try moving static libraries into a hidden location to prevent unintentional linking with static libraries in ports building. Having some ports linking libraries staticaly makes keeping ports security information almost impossible. - -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEARECAAYFAknzgSoACgkQK/VZk+smlYFxcgCfc7BrqNeCRhfvxqtqhxlooa0c LN8Anj9C2vcj52xqI0pDUkUioNgQA7LL =1juO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- !DSPAM:49f38125967007839267135!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090426013117.919bc3a5.stas>