5 ms·
Our team has had a decent compile time improvement by switching to ninja[1] from gmake. [1] https://martine.github.io/ninja/manual.html https://martine.github.
by mden 11y ago
Our team has had a decent compile time improvement by switching to ninja[1] from gmake.
[1] https://martine.github.io/ninja/manual.html https://martine.github.io/ninja/manual.html
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoNo build system thus far reaches the elegance of redo, though.
- Joky 11y agoMy experience has been very positive for incremental build (you have built once a large software and change one file and need to rebuild) but no difference on fresh build.
- mahyarm 11y agoAfter a certain point, you can't get over compiler processing time.
- mden 11y agoNinja's magic happens before the compiler in deciding what needs to be compiled quicker than gmake.
- mahyarm 11y agoThat's what I meant. If you have to rebuild everything, then ninja or gmake doesn't make anything faster, since it's the compiler's speed at that point.
- Joky 11y agoWell there is still the amount of parallelism that can be exposed. It just seems that CMake exposes it as well for make than for ninja I guess.
- mden 11y agoYup exactly what we use it for. Combined with Jenkins, makes it easy to make sure your master branch is in a good state.
- dima55 11y agoIf you mean as a backend to CMake, then it's entirely the fault of CMake's braindead-ness
- mden 11y agoExplain. You are saying CMake is bad with gmake but good with ninja?