Re: Re: Building OpenOffice.org with GNU make

Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Jussi Pakkanen wrote:
>
>   
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Thorsten Behrens <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>> functionality? Even if CMake eventually turns out to be too slow,
>>>> would it not make more sense to write your own custom CMake back
>>>> end rather than the configuration/generation front end?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I guess it's now my turn to ask for sample code here. ;)
>>>       
>> For a backend? No, sorry. I have never looked into that.
>>
>> But the issue raised earlier was that because CMake's Makefiles are
>> recursive (or something) they are too slow, probably because automake
>> does it this way and is slow. I personally do not think this will be
>> an issue. When running on Windows, the time taken by makefiles when
>> changing directories is insignificant compared to the time taken by
>> the compiler. But I have only tried it under Virtualbox and not at all
>> thoroughly.
>>     
>
> The problem is not because the makefiles "are" recursive. The problem is
> that it looks if CMake does not offer a way to include all makefiles of
> the whole project (or at least larger parts of it if you think about a
> split build) into a single process without clashing of target names.
>   
I can imagine that there might be a clashing of target names in a 1:1 
transistion from makefile,mk to other makefiles, but I general I would 
consider the existance of target name clashes as a brain node (aka bug) 
which should be solved easy.
> So the only way to reuse CMake makefiles for a complete build is
> recursively calling them or - as we do today in OOo - serialize the
> process. I don't think that this is a matter of performance per se, it's
> just that the benefit is missing we wanted to get from the new "single
> make process" approach.
>   
no need to have this if you have unique targets, I guess ?
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
>   
Martin