On 24.02.2015 15:58, Ashod Nakashian wrote: >>> Also, we might merge with 4.1, but that's a different matter. >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >> >> so first i think this whole custom gnu-make-lo needs to die :) >> > > I agree with the spirit, but, the built-ins should give a good speed > boost, although I did get some mixed results. > > I have patched upstream 4.1, upstream 4.0 (official lo linked,) and > lo-4.0 (lo repo head with my patch), and compared them (with dry-run, > I didn't compare full builds). > With -np: Upstream 4.1 is the fastest (50s,) 4.0 was 58s and lo-4.0 was 61s. > With -n: Upstream 4.1 is the fastest (42s,) 4.0 was 45s and lo-4.0 was 50s. > > In theory, the built-in functions should give a healthy speed boost, > but it seems that at least for a dry-run upstream has improved times.
i don't think the built-ins will do anything to improve a dry-run build. (there is also a "depcache" feature that does improve incremental and dry-run builds and seems quite sane but unfortunately upstream wasn't interested in merging that...) > One more tests is necessary to confirm whether the built-ins are > worthwhile or not: apply the LO patch on top of upstream 4.1 and > compare full build times. hmmm maybe that will be a little faster but i've never had the time to find out how much. >> last i checked the latest branch in the gnu-make-lo was based on >> upstream 4.0 release; unfortunately that release does not work as a >> Win32 build, it would crash sometimes during the build. > > Interesting. I haven't noticed any issues (I had two unit-tests fail, > but restarting the build resumed fine, but I think these are random UT > failures, which do happen from time to time). > How does it crash? Can you give more color? sorry, forgot what it was, it just sometimes crashed during a build from scratch. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
