Re: Performance issue of libtool-2.4.4
Peter Rosin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2015-02-06 10:30, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Peter, > >> On Feb 6, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Peter Rosin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 2015-02-04 15:48, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >>>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2015, Robert Yang wrote: >>>> >>>> When reporting a bug, please describe a test case to reproduce it and >>>> include the following information: >>>> >>>> host-triplet: $host >>>> shell: $SHELL >>>> compiler: $LTCC >>>> compiler flags: $LTCFLAGS >>>> linker: $LD (gnu? $with_gnu_ld) >>>> version: $progname (GNU libtool) 2.4.5 >>>> automake: `($AUTOMAKE --version) 2>/dev/null |$SED 1q` >>>> autoconf: `($AUTOCONF --version) 2>/dev/null |$SED 1q` >>> >>> Perhaps libtool is accidentially executing 'automake --version' and 'autoconf --version' every time it is executed? That would certainly lead to a huge slowdown. >> >> That's it of course, how else could the variable be assigned? > > Only when --version is being serviced. Are you saying the a script with this line in it: foo="`($AUTOCONF --version)`" will delay the exec of $AUTOCONF until foo is expanded? I think not. >> But is it even useful information? I would expect that the autofoo >> versions *at the time the package was created* is what matters? > > The information is useful in bug reports, and our instructions for reporting a bug to the list explicitly ask for the output from `libtool --version` which by including their other autotool versions makes reproducing the reporters environment a lot easier :-) But are the autofoo versions at libtool time really what we want to know in bug reports? Again, I'd be much more interested in the autofoo versions used to bootstrap the package. That might often be the same thing, but when they are not confusion will ensue. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool