Re: Make, make, make. . .

[Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.net>]

Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
> 
> Christian Reiniger wrote:
> 
> > I can't say anything about this, but you know the times I measured witl
> > LibPPlay. For a comparison I did the same with LibGGI (2.0b2.1).
> >
> > Mozilla is of course quite a bit larger, but the above behavior should also
> > scale to thet size.
> >
> > Well, ok. short form: I haven't yet encountered any problems with recursive
> > makefiles, so I'm still not convinced that they're bad. But that doesn't
> > really matter, right? :)
> 
> Please do your test with Mozilla, then give your results and comment on
> overhead. :-)

You are probably right - but it's not a good idea to extrapolate the problems
of huge bloatware projects down to the scales used by people who ask for
advice about Makefiles.

For projects up to (lets' say) 250kloc, it doesn't make a damned bit of
difference *what* you do.  It's all dominated by compile (and mostly)
link times - and with modern CPU's, that's largely down to how fast your
disk drives are.

I don't think anyone is denying that Mozilla had problems with insanely
long make overheads.

-- 
Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
sjbaker1@airmail.net (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
sjbaker@hti.com      (work)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: linuxgames-unsubscribe@sunsite.auc.dk
For additional commands, e-mail: linuxgames-help@sunsite.auc.dk