4 ms·
3 second would be fine; but I’ve heard of people with 45 minute compile times.
by nicoburns 5y ago
3 second would be fine; but I’ve heard of people with 45 minute compile times.
- lttlrck 5y agoI suffered 30 minutes until I installed ccache - now the build time depends on what has been changed but it's a tiny fraction most of the time - unless I hit a template, but even then it's still a massive improvement.
- isomel 5y agoCan't the build system already detect what changed? Is that not what ninja does?
- imron 5y agoI envy them. A clean compile on the codebase I'm working on takes over 2 hours.
- exdsq 5y agoReminds me of Haskell. Grass is always greener I guess :)
- ncmncm 5y agoIf you wait 2 hours, you are Doing It Wrong. It will take you less than 2 hours to fix your build.
- maccard 5y agoThat's not true. If it were that easy the builds would be quicker. My last project was 2 hours clean build on CI. I spent a week optimising it and got it down to 90 minutes, and within 2 months it was back up to to 2 hours again. Entropy is real!
- gpderetta 5y agoEternal vigilance is the price of a fast build!
- imron 5y agoIngo Molnar spent a year trying to improve build times for the Linux kernel [0] And that was for C, which is relatively straightforward compared to c++. I suspect it would take months to sort out the project I am on now, and even then full builds would still be slow. To suggest it could be fixed in hours is ignorance. 0: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YdIfz+LMewetSaEB@gmail.com/T/#u https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YdIfz+LMewetSaEB@gmail.com/T/#u