From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 05:39:20
David Abrahams wrote:
> And, as Rene explained, nothing you can
> do with the .jamdeps file is going to improve matters much because
> dependency scanning is not where most of the time goes.
So I was interested in this info and tried to get a profile of a typical
bjam run. So I ran 'bjam lib' on my project with all targets up to date
to avoid influencing the timing with calls to the compiler or linker.
First conclusions :
25% of time is spend in hashitem, 19% in string_append and 15% in
var_expand (the total run took 264 seconds) (profile in attach)
The 'string_append' surprises me though and I wonder also if the code
could benefit from a using a memory pool. As far as the hashitem is
concerned, I have no clear visibility on what it's doing.
I'm going to look into this a bit more in the future (actually I've put
it in my planning) and hope to be able to have some time in a month or so.
--------------060306000808080100050406 Content-Type: application/x-zip-compressed;
[Attachment content not displayed.] --------------060306000808080100050406--
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