From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 842 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2003 16:25:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 811 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2003 16:25:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com) (24.93.67.84) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2003 16:25:35 -0000 Received: from fridge (rdu163-60-178.nc.rr.com [24.163.60.178]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h74GNc3M019234 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2003 12:23:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lark (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by fridge with esmtp; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 12:25:30 -0400 Received: from wingo by lark with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19ji5F-0000SL-00 for ; Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:21:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:25:00 -0000 From: Andy Wingo To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Compiling guile-gobject experiences Message-ID: <20030804162116.GA1217@lark> Mail-Followup-To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com References: <87ptjornbn.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ptjornbn.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> X-Operating-System: Linux lark 2.4.20-1-686 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-q3/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On Sat, 02 Aug 2003, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > I've just tried a rebuild of a new guile-gobject CVS checkout. The > build takes extremly long (I've cancelled it, after my machine started > heavy trashing). The problem is the generated guile-gnome-gw-gtk.c, > which has 154075 lines (:-O). This happens for me too, but only on gcc-3.3. If you try make with gcc-3.2 (and even better with CC='ccache gcc-3.2'), the problem isn't near so bad. And my machine is low-end, these days anyway: a celeron 600 with 192 megs of ram. But I do agree that it's a problem. I think reducing the size of the generated code is the best solution, personally. I'm glad to hear that you're compiling the code :-) I'd be pleased to have you on as a co-maintainer if you're still interested. My internet connection is spotty, and I'm about to go on holiday in a couple weeks, for the record. Regards, Andy (another one ;)