9 ms·
Note that Mold has no interest in becoming incremental, so there is a big reason there for another linker to exist. I find it kind of embarrassing that MS' link
by estebank 2y ago
Note that Mold has no interest in becoming incremental, so there is a big reason there for another linker to exist. I find it kind of embarrassing that MS' linker has been incremental by default for decades, yet there's no production ready incremental linker on Linux yet.
- bogwog 2y ago[flagged]
- Thorrez 2y agoI'm pretty sure that's a typo, and "incremental" was meant to be included in that sentence.
- estebank 2y agoYes, indeed I accidentally forgot about incremental there.
- bdhcuidbebe 2y agoWhy so hostile? Have a break, go look at the clouds, they are beautiful today!
- estebank 2y agoYes, I missed a word. And I believe pretty much everybody else realized what I meant to say. Feel free to point me in the direction of a production grade incremental compiler that can run on Linux, GNU or otherwise.
- dang 2y ago"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- pjmlp 2y agoAdditionally the way precompiled headers are handled in Visual C++ and C++ Builder have always been much better than traditional UNIX compilers, and now we have modules as well.
- zik 2y agoThe way precompiled headers work in C++ is a bit of an ugly hack. And worse, it's almost as slow as just compiling them all every time anyway.
- pjmlp 2y agoOnly in traditional UNIX, which I mentioned. Borland and Microsoft compilers have been dealing with them just fine since at very least 1994, when I started using Turbo C++ 3.1 for Windows.
- paulddraper 2y agoIt has to be a candidate for the longest biggest gap in build tooling ever.
- jcelerier 2y agoOTOH even lld, fast but fairly slower than mold, is already incredibly faster than MS's linker even without the incrmeentality. Like, I'm routinely linking hundreds of megabytes in less than a second anyways, not sure incrementality is that much worth it
- cyco130 2y agoNot a rhetorical question: Could it be that part of the speed difference is due to the file system speed? I was shocked when I saw how much modern(ish) Windows file systems were slower than modern(ish) Linux ones.
- leeoniya 2y agoit's usually windows defender and virus scanning that causes these massive slowdowns.
- berti 2y agoThat’s exactly the problem “Dev Drive” is intended to solve I believe. I haven’t tried it myself. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-drive/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dev-drive/
- p_ing 2y agoIt helps. Install your games on it, too.
- miki123211 2y agoAnd as a result of this, if you want to optimize your program to be fast on Windows, you will make very different optimization decisions than on other platforms. For example, Windows runs virus scans on close(), which makes it very slow. This means that sometimes it makes sense to have one or more background threads exclusively dedicated to closing files. There's a good talk on this at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbKGw8MQ0i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbKGw8MQ0i8