Richard, * Richard B. Kreckel wrote on Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:07:10PM CET:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: [...]
Please try the trivial patch below. Still, Richard please consider updating libtool.
As to updateing libtool. Last time I tried (maybe two years ago) it turned out to be kinda nightmarish. IIRC, it tried to link the shared library with ld -r and there appeared to be a superlinear algorithm somewhere. I interrupted it after some hours when it had ony finished several hundred of the 855 objects.
For a decent bugreport this is missing - the system this was observed on - `configure' output, esp. | checking the maximum length of command line arguments... - the exact Libtool version used. Most likely the superlinearity is due to the linker, not to Libtool. If there were a strong argument for trying better link schemes on systems where they are available, that option might be considered. But I have to see them yet.
I've no strong inclination to try again, after all since I'm still working on the cl_heap_modint_ring problem. Of course, if someone else wants to give it a try and it works well, I'll apply patches.
Well. A couple of months ago I put some patches into the HEAD version of Libtool to make it link libcln.la more efficiently. I did not work on the piecewise linking part, because that did not happen to me. For the shell (libtool script execution) part, I did, however, cut the time down to about 30% of the time libtool-1.5.x takes. Now, I am not trying to make people use Libtool HEAD for production. It's unreleased for a reason. What I might try, given enough time, is to get these changes into the next stable version eventually. After that, I might consider sending patches for CLN. Regards, Ralf