3 ms·
Speaking as somebody who works on a reasonably large project,yes, the world needs it. Null build [^1] with cold cache & make: 40s Null build with cold cache &
by groby_b 15y ago
Speaking as somebody who works on a reasonably large project,yes, the world needs it.
Null build [^1] with cold cache & make: 40s
Null build with cold cache & ninja: 12s
Null build with hot cache & make: 20s
Null build with hot cache & ninja: < 1s
Ninja saves me 20 seconds every single time I build something. Let's say I kick off about 30-40 builds a day, that's 10-15 minutes each day.
[^1]: I.e. nothing changed
- ajross 15y agoAre your make and ninja configurations 1:1? Note that a null build on the kernel (larger than most "reasonably large" projects) is well under 20 seconds.
- groby_b 15y agoBoth generated from the same gyp files, yes. And by "reasonably large", I mean about 9.5MLOC, 30K source files excluding headers :) Edit: Important info here might be that those times are for an OSX build. I haven't measured, but it seems builds on Linux are faster.
- beagle3 15y agoHave you ever considered tup? http://gittup.org/tup http://gittup.org/tup seems like it is going to be as fast as ninja, without sacrificing anything. (No project where a null make takes more than 0.1 secs myself, so I can't really tell)