From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Speeding up the bootstrap build - a quick hack. Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="33510"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 18 21:51:21 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1n9vRo-0008VF-RA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:51:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45630 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9vRn-0003UL-U3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:51:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47760) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9vP5-00072F-1w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:31 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:32083) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9vP2-0004lO-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:30 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4223D8049E; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:26 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D1CAC80159; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1642538904; bh=sHP0RAZEP3zcFuO9RLBkHQYKLi4k9wp9ygy2KX7wlLw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=D6Tq/HQY8+sa/imquk20lt0lt0fEs2ghJIbtAg1BKoSeamJOhJnL1ccbN+Oja4B2K 7So5VBw01zw74AYWswJp9IrDaHbf62nCBkNOpXSM9RvcuuYxeJlvzj9aCOhxWElU5Y uXe9NXITja/jUgTp06IrbSWGx0QJi7c9lv75HV8DcH27HHC4n/VCzI4U2RhOpmU+EG +n4dH9RPEHTmlnOTsHGIfjSDdFBhFzYyHNvF2dl8psk/rSJMQV7JqLYLlYPC/02InC W+6eDG2QgwMKg8iN1jJnzRhy7vxrAatr5GRmPV9BbymflKyVFTC8387Kfz7Bw+xyBv HODeHHkCO91QQ== Original-Received: from ceviche (unknown [216.154.30.173]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9EF5120387; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:48:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:27:06 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284951 Archived-At: >> >> > -.PHONY: compile-first compile-main compile compile-always >> >> > +.PHONY: compile-zeroth compile-first compile-main compile compile-= always > >> >> > -compile-first: $(COMPILE_FIRST) >> >> > +compile-zeroth: $(COMPILE_ZEROTH) >> >> > +compile-first: compile-zeroth $(COMPILE_FIRST) > >> >> Is this necessary, or is it just helpful to debug the Makefile? > >> > I'm not sure. I'm a little confused, still. > > It seems to be necessary. At any rate, changing the mix slightly gave > rise to unwanted results. In particular... > >> At least I can't see why `compile-first` should need to depend on >> `compile-zeroth` since the > >> %.elc: %.el $(COMPILE_ZEROTH) > > If I change that line to > > %.elc: %.el compile-zeroth > > , then Emacs builds, but redundantly ELC's all the .el files which are > preloaded, taking 15 seconds longer to do so. I don't understand why > this happens. > > Even more notably, if I eliminate compile-zeroth, putting in instead > $(COMPILE_ZEROTH) everywhere needed, then make creates and deletes the > ..elc0 files four times, and also redundantly runs ELC on the preloaded > ..el files, despite them already being .eln's. This run took 2=BD minutes > longer than expected, too. I don't understand why all that happened, > either. But what if you don't define `compile-zeroth`, and you keep: compile-first: $(COMPILE_FIRST) and %.elc: %.el $(COMPILE_ZEROTH) ? >> rule should already give the same result. So I'd suggest you drop >> this part of the patch and see if that causes any kind of trouble. > As above, it caused all sorts of trouble. Maybe I'm confused but IIUC none of what you tried corresponds to just not using the above hunk. Stefan