From: Phillip Seaver (phil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-20 08:50:38
Martin Bonner wrote:
> Well, without the numbers, I agree. But the numbers do rather back him up
> (except that BoostBuild does seem to be marginally quicker than Scons on
> three out of four tests, whereas he describes it as "Slower even than
> Are there any known optimization oportunities in BoostBuild?
> Are the results an artifact of his test set up?
It looks to me like he's still using m10 (unless it was a typo or
failure to update), and Volodya said this about the numbers the first time:
>However, things are not as bad as it seem, because your test is artificial.
>It has a *lot* of similarly named targets, and that hits some non-scalable
>part in Boost.Build. Fixing that dropped the time quite significally, though
>that's not in CVS yet so I can't give exact data.
I haven't tried m10 vs CVS yet. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll
try it later this morning. :-)
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