llvm dev - Dec 2017 - [cfe-dev] Who wants faster LLVM/Clang builds?

I'm sorry I just diving in the maillist but wanna to make a small 
noise(or joking) here.

Did you tested for all #define branches/cases to prove the tweak is correct?

And I guess no C++ programmer actually cares about the build time here. 
It's a historic issue. If they do, why they don't go straight for Java?

---

neoe


On 2017/12/7 上午 9:14, via llvm-dev wrote:
> Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev]  Who wants faster LLVM/Clang builds?

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 5:46 PM, neoe via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry I just diving in the maillist but wanna to make a small
noise(or joking) here.
> 
> Did you tested for all #define branches/cases to prove the tweak is
correct?
No. Moreover, I know that the tweak is incorrect in some cases, as it currently
would wipe all includes from inactive ifdef sections (see “Methodology” in the
end of the original email).
> 
> And I guess no C++ programmer actually cares about the build time here.
It's a historic issue.
If you multiply the number of active developers by an average number of builds
they do daily, you may be surprised to see how beneficial it can be to improve
build times.
> If they do, why they don't go straight for Java?
:-)

Michael
> 
> ---
> 
> neoe
> 
> 
> On 2017/12/7 上午 9:14, via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev]  Who wants faster LLVM/Clang builds?
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev