3 ms·
I doubt that anyone cares all that much about linking times in the CI. And even if someone does, it's probably an individual developer or team, ie, someone with
by mariusor 3y ago
I doubt that anyone cares all that much about linking times in the CI. And even if someone does, it's probably an individual developer or team, ie, someone without decision power to pay for something as niche as a linker.
Also, mold was designed as an alternative to gold / lld, therefore it would require to be open-source and free on their main platform: linux.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWell, CI is where the costs are, and if the application is big enough, even a few percent reduction via faster linking times would equate to lower costs, while in contrast, developers won't really care or notice a few percent reduction on their local machine. It's AGPL on Linux now, and they sell commercial licenses for companies that won't touch that license, and they were contemplating earlier making mold only available under a non-free source available license like BSL, so there's no "requirement" as such that it be free and open source, even on Linux.
- insanitybit 3y agoI care deeply about linking times on CI. It's very frustrating having your code all build and run tests locally just to wait a long time for it to pass all of the CI barriers. Plus, CI builds often go stale much faster, so you're looking at much longer build times without caches.
- mariusor 3y agoSure, but you're not really contradicting me unless you're able to get your company to pay for faster tooling. And if you can, why haven't you already?
- satvikpendem 3y agoWell, yes, that is the crux of this argument, that one can convince their employer to use mold. Otherwise, what is the point of using it? Desktop users by and large will not notice a small 3-5% improvement in compile times while those that pay for CI will.