Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "insignif".
Did you mean:
insignia
2011 Nov 01
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
> A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build
> with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so)
> on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this
> seems pretty insignifant.
Oh, it's significant. When I build the Cray compiler with only non-LLVM
stuff changed, the actual compiles (the Cray stuff) finish before the
LLVM figures out nothing has changed. This is a sginificant
productivity loss. The Cray compiler uses a non-recursive make and so
gets tons of pa...
2011 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
...<ofv at wanadoo.es> writes:
>
>> A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build
>> with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so)
>> on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this
>> seems pretty insignifant.
>
> Oh, it's significant. When I build the Cray compiler with only non-LLVM
> stuff changed, the actual compiles (the Cray stuff) finish before the
> LLVM figures out nothing has changed. This is a sginificant
> productivity loss.
How is that? Your compiler builds in less...
2011 Oct 28
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
...and found it to
> be substantially faster than the recursive makefile.
A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build
with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so)
on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this
seems pretty insignifant.
Furthermore, recursive make is necessary for automatic generation of
header dependencies, among other things. The makefiles generated by
cmake are "partially" recursive for that reason:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ#Why_does_CMake_generate_recursive_Makefiles.3F
>>>...
2011 Oct 28
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:28 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote:
> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes:
>
>> There are several major problems with CMake IMO:
>>
>> 1. It generates really slow build systems.
>
> In my Linux box, last time I checked (long time ago) the cmake build was
> a bit faster than the Makefiles. But this is a tricky terrain, because
>
2011 Nov 01
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
...s> writes:
>>
>>> A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build
>>> with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so)
>>> on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this
>>> seems pretty insignifant.
>>
>> Oh, it's significant. When I build the Cray compiler with only non-LLVM
>> stuff changed, the actual compiles (the Cray stuff) finish before the
>> LLVM figures out nothing has changed. This is a sginificant
>> productivity loss.
>
> How is that?...
2011 Nov 01
3
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
...s> writes:
>>
>>> A good measure of how fast a set of Makefile are is to run the build
>>> with all targets up-to-date. Both builds takes a few seconds (3 or so)
>>> on my Linux quad core box. Whatever improvement can be achieved on this
>>> seems pretty insignifant.
>>
>> Oh, it's significant. When I build the Cray compiler with only non-LLVM
>> stuff changed, the actual compiles (the Cray stuff) finish before the
>> LLVM figures out nothing has changed. This is a sginificant
>> productivity loss.
>
> How is that?...
2011 Oct 28
19
[LLVMdev] RFC: Upcoming Build System Changes
Hi all,
As you might have inferred, I'm in the process of working on some changes to the
way LLVM builds. I have outlined a rough proposal below, unless there are any
major objections I will probably start committing stuff next week.
This message may be verbose, if you want the executive summary, skip
to 'What This
Means For Jane "LLVM Developer" Doe' at the bottom.