similar to: Building with LLVM_PARALLEL_XXX_JOBS

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 24, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I switched from "configure and make" to "cmake" build-system and >> wanted to speedup my build. >> >> In my build-script I

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I switched from "configure and make" to "cmake" build-system and > wanted to speedup my build. > > In my build-script I use... > > CMAKE_JOBS="1" > ##CMAKE_JOBS=$(($(getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN)+1)) >

On linux (not Windows) I doubt using Ninja vs make will make drastic differences.. (Others with actual numbers please chime in to correct me) /* I think the difference could be more beneficial if you're doing incremental builds, but I don't think that is what you're doing.. */ On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:55 AM, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On linux (not Windows) I doubt using Ninja vs make will make drastic > differences.. (Others with actual numbers please chime in to correct > me) > > /* > I think the difference could be more beneficial if you're doing > incremental builds, but I don't think that is what

> Which combination of cmake/ninja versions are you using (latest are > v3.4.3 and v1.6.0)? > With this combination I could reduce build-time down from approx. 3h down to 01h20m. $ egrep -i 'jobs|ninja' llvm-build/CMakeCache.txt //Program used to build from build.ninja files. CMAKE_MAKE_PROGRAM:FILEPATH=/opt/cmake/bin/ninja //Define the maximum number of concurrent compilation

> On Mar 1, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > > There are a few notes I'd like to add to this thread. > > (1) we have a number of places throughout out CMake build where we use features from newer CMakes gated by version checks. Most of these features are performance or usability related. None of them are correctness. Using the latest

For faster builds and rebuilds you should definitely read: https://blogs.s-osg.org/an-introduction-to-accelerating-your-build-with-clang/ https://blogs.s-osg.org/a-conclusion-to-accelerating-your-build-with-clang/ Hope this helps! On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:17 PM, ChrisBieneman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:01 AM, Mehdi Amini

Hey Chris, Sedat was asking for a way to "to speedup my build" and those blog posts were really helpful to me. Anyway LLVM_DISTRIBUTION_COMPONENTS sounds very cool, hope you will push your code soon! On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: > Fabio, the work I was mentioning here is an extension beyond those blog > posts. > >

> On Mar 2, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: > > I got some more inspirations on how to speedup my build and integrated > the URLs into my scripts (attached). > > For example to use GOLD as linker or to use '-O3' OptLevel maybe in > combination with LTO and PGO (using '-O3 -flto -fprofile-use'). LTO *will* slow down

I had only a quick view on the blog-texts. It might be that a CLANG generated with LTO/PGO speeds up the build. Can you confirm this? Can you confirm binutils-gold speed up the build? Has LLVM an own linker? Can be used? Speedup the build? Yesterday night I loooked through available CMAKE/LLVM variables... ### GOLD # CMAKE_LINKER:FILEPATH=/usr/bin/ld #

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Tilmann Scheller <tilmann at osg.samsung.com> wrote: > Hi Sedat, > > On 03/03/2016 08:09 AM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> It might be that a CLANG generated with LTO/PGO speeds up the build. >> Can you confirm this? > > Yes, a Clang host compiler built with LTO or PGO is generally faster than an > -O3 build. >

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: >> [ brutal-snip ] >> ... >>> [ TODO#S: Before doing a 2nd build (and in a 3rd run using more >>>

[ Please CC me I am not subscribed to this ML ] Original posting from [1]... <QUOTE> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:13:05PM +0100, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev wrote: > Build-time increased approx. 1h from 2 to 3 hours when using CMAKE > instead of CONFIGURE/MAKE (logs deleted for LLVM v3.8.0rc2). > Building always done with one single parallel-compile-jobs. > When using CMAKE

Hi, here some statistics when building LLVM v3.8.0rc3 with CMAKE and GCC v4.9.2 or CLANG v3.8.0rc3 here on my Ubuntu/precise AMD64 system. [ THE GOOD (disc-usage) ] Compiling with clang-3.8 produces smaller binaries VS. gcc-4.9 (approx. 250MiB smaller). Checking with 'wc -l' shows 1893 files in total for both install-dirs. $ cd /opt ; du -s -m llvm-toolchain-3.8.0rc3_* 609

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Chris Bieneman <cbieneman at apple.com> wrote: [ brutal-snip ] ... > [ TODO#S: Before doing a 2nd build (and in a 3rd run using more > optimized binaries) ] > > How do I anable LTO via CMAKE? > > > LLVM_ENALBLE_LTO=On > [ v4 of my build-script attached ] Hi Chris, thanks for the response! That seems to work (see below). $ cd

I use latest cmake+ninja which are built from latest sources. ================================= > cmake --version cmake version 2.8.9.20121011-g2876 ================================= -- mahesha On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am first time trying build CLANG+LLVM using cmake+ninja build > system. I updated all

The configuration we’re mentioning is a 2-stage bootstrap: You need first to build without LTO your own clang, and then use it for the LTO build. — Mehid > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: > > I am the author of Polly's/ISL's platform tests and could reproduce > the problem on my system with this error message: > >

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > don't think that's terribly viable here. Just out of curiosity - why isn't that viable? I'd sort of hope to treat optional sanitizer runtimes

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. > > > > Richard, I know you were OK with only supporting Clang-bootstraps, but I > > don't think that's terribly viable

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:09 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> > I'm seeing this too. CC'ing the author ubsan stuff. >> > >> >