From: Kevin Wheatley (hxpro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-28 05:15:19
Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > yep, I think that is certainly the bulk of the time - without doing
> > exhaustive repeat runs, there is not much difference between removing
> > that line, and my own version it. It's the glob that talkes all the
> > time (>60s). This is running on a local NTFS filesystem,
> Not laptop, by chance?
no its an old dual 900MHz pentium 3 machine, with SCSI disk so its not
normally that bad...
> One approach is to make glob lazy, so globbing is only done when installing
> Boost. Another approach is to use some recursive copy program. It's known
> issue, but I'll take to devote some time to it.
> In either case, using glob for your own target should be have such bad effect,
> as you'll be globbing for much less files.
indeed, it only takes 10-15 seconds to do nothing on my toy (199
targets reported) test project... if I mirror some of the remote files
locally to give an unfair test against make it is nearer 1-2s.
make is near instant, even with remote files, but then that's NFS not
SMB, linux not windows, etc. and in make I have a cached set of
dependancies, that ignore system includes, which is what I tag Boost
as, my make projects only work for our Unix systems (IRIX and Linux),
not Windows which was one of the reasons I could spend some time on
-- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
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