Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 14:33:01 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD ARM <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org>, Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFT: Please help testing the llvm/clang 3.5.0 import Message-ID: <68DB489E-7345-4D94-9CE6-44A003D4B326@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <18CDB8BF-C24E-442D-8904-5DB777E64A62@gmail.com> References: <8598B1D4-5485-426F-B6D6-22BF26AC5FE1@FreeBSD.org> <CAGHfRMBPkQiTgW0Eahkoe1QwArBst-BZ-Lawor_CDda1x8K9xg@mail.gmail.com> <D9C5A8D1-2158-4B37-9C9C-067A4DDE6E44@FreeBSD.org> <21650.55288.425711.209975@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <E2670EBE-CD53-43D5-89EA-DC5460849BE5@FreeBSD.org> <9D9850F8-62D6-4A85-BED3-1B4AB4DE5C14@bsdimp.com> <18CDB8BF-C24E-442D-8904-5DB777E64A62@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_A5CA1A93-A6F5-47F0-A106-C200CAC64F54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > On Dec 18, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> = wrote: >=20 > On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:51, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >=20 >> With the recent parallelism work, the is true. It might save a couple = percent >> off the build time. Before those changes, though, disabling all non = target >> arches saved about 10% of the buildworld time. >=20 > I=92m curious. How much is 10% in terms of minutes and with what -j = value? That depends on how long the build takes. For my 20 minute builds it was = about 2 minutes faster. At the time, -j didn=92t really effect build times = once you got north of 4 because parallelism really sucked. Now it doesn=92t suck and it = scales much better and I suspect that the time savings would be tiny because it = would be done at the same time as other things anyway, but I=92ve not measured it = directly. >> Creating a hack to do this is easy (which is how I measured it). But = Dimitry >> is right that creating a robust solution is hard. Even harder if you = want it >> to be completely clean. >=20 > It didn=92t seem incredibly hard =97 it just required a bit more = =93generated files=94 in clang AFAICT. I=92ll hang ten until clang35 is = in so I can re-asses what=92s going on with building it. Yea, and that file generation is a pita, or I=92d have committed my changes a while ago... >> I tend to agree. IMHO, supporting the work going on to bring the >> meta-mode stuff will pay far higher dividends than optimizing this >> corner of the build. >=20 > True=85 probably will! Yea, this isn=92t a problem worth solving today. Warner --Apple-Mail=_A5CA1A93-A6F5-47F0-A106-C200CAC64F54 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJUk0gNAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEACCoQAMgYuu6g/pPHLcpndN8/cKjv g44ubOsyG8i+1ahZnP/bCGUdDRw9QitdwhV5WLktELlecYALccwPGoyiqlBg6vdt sJ/lKgDVSL0CKOhyUpPvfugB9D6qt3E1oQvqgIQ4iroxI/VeybFpPyBi0LS3L2oU +M6eSNgQWmFotss/MGHIN+6xygsQyxCskO6ft5qaOg/Vam60QrzMfcbQX/50EBZG opl8tpj8tqOuq0FZHbgPxpH6DNWrdyMzXL38yT0xQWUXtgH7OHr4n9xap6oD7iTy Nou9SwSFEEB7WJ3zgRPgg1HmASYMkHPUD7oQh7bn3OIfr777jQtBpS1z0CAdTvgW XHl4cIWuETI/5fo8aMdOj4IdMJTqnqr9M4Nelk4FYeBohp71Id0CZmUk5dSEeoam WY5mfIMgjkmxcz4oqHwJhpblVDyVQ7364wjBdanUX3Mwhv7u88NXce6K9W6T+2j9 sc5nVaDLQTUKnHAdjh7GmZcGv3SFMwMkBsu7dqipvWkK8a7HbxU1k5tggq+mdVdK USW9I7KRM+05Bqx1I6m2W5/iBQ6BmIbY0z9hdA5c0dEL/0WDgf5uuV2sHp3te2hZ g39Z1tb/Bx1axOj37ahnfsMurVSAoptO2BpgXbCnc87CsgNl24m0Z+zNdZou3moA uAYq7Xjw2xfwibX98mJC =2YY7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A5CA1A93-A6F5-47F0-A106-C200CAC64F54--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?68DB489E-7345-4D94-9CE6-44A003D4B326>