3 ms·
You can't have faster compile times. If you want fast compile times C++ needs to sacrifice something else (ABI compatibility, compatibility to compile code from
by VHRanger 2y ago
You can't have faster compile times. If you want fast compile times C++ needs to sacrifice something else (ABI compatibility, compatibility to compile code from 1979 for some dead big endian 12-bit word chip, etc.
In fact the truth is the people working on C++ don't actually value fast compile times over other matters (fast runtime, ABI compatibility, etc.)
They say they do. But they don't in their actions.
One egregious example: look at the compilation speeds of clang with release build configs (-O2 or higher, etc.) over the years.
It compiles much slower now than it did in 2014 for the same code. The compilation speed is worsening at a much faster rate than the runtime speeds are improving from version to version.
- maccard 2y agoI agree with you. I would move heaven and earth for faster unoptimizrd builds, but I’m perfectly happy with multi hour O2 builds from clang. The state that modules was standardised in proved what you’re saying - there were many opportunities to allow for faster compile times but instead we chose maximum flexibility with no consideration for what that leaves on the table.
- pjmlp 2y agoThat sacrifice is called C++20 modules and quite alright on VC++ and clang 18.