[ expat-Bugs-566238 ] 1.95.3: xmlwf startup time much longer

Thu Jul 11 10:11:06 2002

Bugs item #566238, was opened at 2002-06-08 10:29
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110127&aid=566238&group_id=10127

Category: Build control
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 6
Submitted By: Rolf Ade (pointsman)
Assigned to: Greg Stein (gstein)
Summary: 1.95.3: xmlwf startup time much longer

Initial Comment:

At least at my linux box, I seems that the new way of
starting xmlwf - with a shell wrapper - heavily
increases the startup time of xmlwf.

For most people, this may be a really minor problem (it
isn't even a big one for me, though). But if you check
a lot of really small xml files with xmlwf in  one
commandline or a shell script, this is very notable. 

I've noticed it, while checking the (very small) test
files of the OASIS test suite. My shell scripts, that
does this, needed up to 10 times (!) longer, to finished.

To be sure, it's really the startup time, I checked
xmlwf against some bigger XML files (around 30 Mbyte)
and found only minor speed differences between 1.95.2
and 1.95.3. It seems, 1.95.3 is around 6 or 7 percent
slower than 1.95.2 (I've substracted the mesured longer
startup time of the 1.95.3 xmlwf from the running time,
befor calculation.)

rolf

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Greg Stein (gstein)
Date: 2002-07-11 10:10

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=6501

Rolf,

Was your slower time measured against xmlwf out of the build
tree, or an installed copy? As far as I can tell, we never
install the shell script wrapper. Within the build tree, it
will always be present (the first run will be slow while it
links, then it should be faster (but not as fast as without
the shell script, of course))

Anyways... we need to find out if your observation was for
the build or installed copy of xmlwf.

thx.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fred L. Drake, Jr. (fdrake)
Date: 2002-06-29 08:28

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=3066

This is painful, but not enough to hold up a bugfix release.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Fred L. Drake, Jr. (fdrake)
Date: 2002-06-25 21:58

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=3066

Ugh!  This is heinous!  The crufty libtool wrapper should
never be installed, and even says so itself.

Greg, can you fix this soon?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110127&aid=566238&group_id=10127