On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 08:02:23AM +0100, Florian Bruhin wrote: > * Thorsten Wißmann <edu _at_ thorsten _minus_ wissmann _dot_ de> [2014-02-04 18:22:01 +0100]: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 06:00:31PM +0100, Florian Bruhin wrote: > > > This avoids calling binaries from the Makefile more often than they > > > need to. > > > > > > before: > > > > > > $ make clean > /dev/null; strace -f make 2>&1 | grep -c 'execve(.* = 0' > > > 558 > > > > > > after: > > > > > > $ make clean > /dev/null; strace -f make 2>&1 | grep -c 'execve(.* = 0' > > > 153 > > > > Is this really of relevance? > > > > -INCS = -Isrc/ -I/usr/include -I${X11INC} `pkg-config --cflags glib-2.0` > > -LIBS = -lc -L${X11LIB} -lXext -lX11 $(XINERAMALIBS) `pkg-config --libs glib-2.0` > > +INCS := -Isrc/ -I/usr/include -I${X11INC} $(shell pkg-config --cflags glib-2.0) > > +LIBS := -lc -L${X11LIB} -lXext -lX11 $(XINERAMALIBS) $(shell pkg-config --libs glib-2.0) > > > > IMO the first one looks more compact and more make'ish, as everything > > with parenthesis $(...) is GNU Make only. Our makefile is gnu make only, > > anyway, but is it such important for you? I mean it only affects build > > performance and is not run regularly. > > I don't care at all ;) > > Usually I do such stuff because I want to learn something and do > something useful at the same time. If the patch isn't accepted then > that's fine (you're the BDFL[1] after all), I still learned something > :) The decisions still should be more or less reasonable ;). In this case I could not imagine how makes a real performance difference. I would keep it as it is because it's less syntax and because there weren't other people voting for $(shell ...). Cheers, Thorsten > [1] Benevolent Dictator for Life, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_Dictator_For_Life
Attachment:
pgpwB5quZdOEV.pgp
Description: PGP signature