On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There is an article called "recursive make considered harmful".
According to it, you should have just one Makefile.am in top level
with all the rules (all libs etc). By this, make can show its
strengths best. Often, a Makefile.am "per directory" seems to be
used, but for a new project today this should be avoided. It just
slows things down and leads to unneeded compiler calls.
I'm sorry, but where on earth did you get this terrible information?
A Makefile.am per directory is precisly what should be used, it
doesn't incure any extra compiler calls. It also makes it easy to
build seperate parts of the tree.
The main advantage of a Makefile per directory is that it makes it
easier to request building seperate parts of the tree. Otherwise the
approach can waste quite a lot of build performance since each
sub-make must stat(2) all off the files required by the Makefile
target as well as all of the generated source file dependencies, and
there is quite a lot of redundant processing (e.g re-linking) which
does not need to occur. A non-recursive build can help avoid
depending on archive libraries and "convenience" libraries which often
consume quite a bit of the build time.
I have taken a number of large Automake-based projects (C and C++) to
non-recursive builds and have not regretted it.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
[email protected], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
