Re: [Libreoffice] a faster gnumake ? ...

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen@canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi Norbert,
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:33:40 -0500
> Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > iow a likely poor performing sort.
>
> Still: sorting and uniqing <1000 strings pales compared to the
> parsing and compiling of a huge amount of C++ source code (one file per
> string above). It will even pale compared to preprocessing the files
> (which is what ccache does). Even when using gawk hashtables for that.

Sure, but I was not comparing the extra cost to the cost of a compile,
but to the intended savings.
on one hand, every time I run make I pay the cost of these redundant stats()
on the other hand every time make has to compile something I have to
pay the cost of that extra sort
(including the cost of the fork, load program, parse it - if awk or
other interpreted. And these are just fix cost, on top of the actual
sort)

Note that the root cause of this evil has a lot to do with our
somewhat anarchic include strategy...
maybe we should re-introduce include guards ;->

Norbert