From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dani Moncayo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two strange messages while building Emacs on MS-Windows Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:31:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> <83fw3hm0nn.fsf@gnu.org> <83k3srdh3d.fsf@gnu.org> <838v96dgyd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1355095877 25591 80.91.229.3 (9 Dec 2012 23:31:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 10 00:31:30 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ThqLJ-0008SO-E7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:31:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35324 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ThqL7-0008Vi-0h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:31:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36776) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ThqL4-0008Ul-7P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:31:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ThqL3-00081g-2g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:31:14 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:36680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ThqL1-00081R-HL; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 18:31:11 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v19so1716445obq.0 for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=K9p4CZnNyKWQ/1lrX6lSUfofqX22oYcDjWcA8jAEFx4=; b=DCQx64OphPE1/I5kDefFlBwI/QdrG74eOQi9YAfOnuQsbNi1IfVbn7QgYCxM2Or/o5 8uPqBJTAy5pFQtOl6PP+FgsRkegwNATilaPK657a861hqAlNBP4ukDqIIiwghsMeFKLa VR+oTjTkUr6gE45fdgYJazvO9TO0iACtkNnAQsBHG1QOWur/LmKe+UxQ2yrbbTs9n9aY 6rvSER1bSHTHXs3hFB7+s1kLwj034cbCywrZytWF8tkZSqJSdQa+uQaqSjHcqIj3jhsZ fvkUtPB5NeodtRsYBVpAaIDPLw1AIZeS6clnbKplZg2nLqhQAXhn+LOmX9AVmuQKDkrk wysQ== Original-Received: by 10.182.130.38 with SMTP id ob6mr6647704obb.100.1355095870286; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.60.11.39 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Dec 2012 15:31:10 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <838v96dgyd.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.214.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155410 Archived-At: >> Still pretty far from his 30min, so while "make -j" would help, the >> inefficiency of the bootstrap is at least as important in his specific >> case, I think. > > I cannot explain 30 min, since I never get such long times here. One > possible reason could be that Dani uses an MSYS Make, which doesn't > support parallel execution (the MinGW Make does in its latest > builds). I'm using "mingw32-make" (C:\MinGW\bin\mingw32-make.exe), not "MSYS Make" (C:\MinGW\msys\1.0\bin\make.exe). It seems to me that the current version of mingw32-make (GNU Make 3.82.90) does support parallel execution, because I sometimes see mixed messages (from different processes) in the terminal when doing a bootstrap with "-jN". > Another potential difference between what I do and what Dani > does is that Dani uses MSYS Bash, while I use cmd.exe. But I can > hardly believe that MSYS Bash slows down things so much. I've just bootstrapped (trunk revno 111165) using cmd.exe as shell, and it took 30 min. and 29sec. I.e., the shell doesn't seem to be relevant here. > Yet another possible reason could be that Dani runs a 64-bit Windows 7 > while I did the above measurements on a 32-bit XPSP3. Recently I > found out that running 32-bit executables on 64-bit Windows OS incurs > a tangible penalty. But my own measurements of byte compilation on > Windows 7 show only 2-fold slowdown, which still brings us only to > around 20 min or so, not 30. A mystery. Yes, my current OS is Windows 7 64-bit. Next time I'll try your changes to `lisp/makefile.w32-in', and see if they are effective here. Thanks. -- Dani Moncayo