Make.exe for Cygwin

[Michael Stahl]

On 24.02.2015 15:58, Ashod Nakashian wrote:

>>> Also, we might merge with 4.1, but that's a different matter.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> so first i think this whole custom gnu-make-lo needs to die :)
>>
> 
> I agree with the spirit, but, the built-ins should give a good speed
> boost, although I did get some mixed results.
> 
> I have patched upstream 4.1, upstream 4.0 (official lo linked,) and
> lo-4.0 (lo repo head with my patch), and compared them (with dry-run,
> I didn't compare full builds).
> With -np: Upstream 4.1 is the fastest (50s,) 4.0 was 58s and lo-4.0 was 61s.
> With -n: Upstream 4.1 is the fastest (42s,) 4.0 was 45s and lo-4.0 was 50s.
> 
> In theory, the built-in functions should give a healthy speed boost,
> but it seems that at least for a dry-run upstream has improved times.

i don't think the built-ins will do anything to improve a dry-run build.

(there is also a "depcache" feature that does improve incremental and
dry-run builds and seems quite sane but unfortunately upstream wasn't
interested in merging that...)

> One more tests is necessary to confirm whether the built-ins are
> worthwhile or not: apply the LO patch on top of upstream 4.1 and
> compare full build times.

hmmm maybe that will be a little faster but i've never had the time to
find out how much.

>> last i checked the latest branch in the gnu-make-lo was based on
>> upstream 4.0 release; unfortunately that release does not work as a
>> Win32 build, it would crash sometimes during the build.
> 
> Interesting. I haven't noticed any issues (I had two unit-tests fail,
> but restarting the build resumed fine, but I think these are random UT
> failures, which do happen from time to time).
> How does it crash? Can you give more color?

sorry, forgot what it was, it just sometimes crashed during a build from
scratch.