From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-02 08:08:57
> On Monday 02 February 2004 10:12, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > Shall I run some profiling ?
> > If that's not too much inconvenience, then I'd appreciate seeing the
> > profile.
> Running bjam -d+10 ?
> > > Is is possible to make library-ordering a customizable feature ?
> > > Like <hardcode-dll-paths> maybe ?
> > Another approach is to rewrite the ordering code in C. Currently, we
> > run graph algorithm in jam code, and jam was never meant for that.
> Well, I'd like to have a mechanism to disable this completely. I fear
> that my legacy projects will suffer from an increase in startup time no
> matter how fast the algorithm will be. And this is simply due to the
> fact that library organisation went out amok some years ago. And
> unfortunately I'm not in the position to get that changed in the near
Let's first look at profile. Rewriting in C can very easily increase
performance by an order of magnitude, and in case of library order, the
speenup may be even greater.
> I've got severe acceptance problems from my co-workers because the
> startup-time is way too high for them. One proposal was to disable
> scanning system includes (#include <>) in order to get a much smaller
> dependency graph.
I'm not sure this will help. The performance is still high on my priority
list, so after I finish a bunch of changes I'm working on, I'll turn to
optimization again. Watch out for my call for profiles ;-)
> > > You only need to order libraries
> > > when doing static linking. But for this to work, we need the
> > > "order-sensitive" properties for system libraries, because these
> > > must be ordered, too.
> > Well, you can declare "searched libraries" and set order between
> > them.
> Oh, it seems it should take a deeper look at the docs ;-)
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk