Many of developers are using Makefile. Getting rid of it doesn't sound user friendly.
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know why we don't get rid of the Makefile altogether and use cmake. > It's a pain to manage both of them independently. Does anyone know why we > still use the Makefile? > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hi > > > > For me it's more about correctness and reproducibility than build > > times, nonetheless, seems that the ninja build is significantly faster > > than the Make build: > > > > Make: > > > > real 4m32.779s > > user 43m33.236s > > sys 0m52.940s > > > > CMake + Ninja: > > > > real 3m30.794s > > user 36m2.564s > > sys 0m56.368s > > > > Compiled on an g3.4xlarge with ebs > > > > Provisioned IOPS SSD > > > > io (115000 iops) > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Hi Pedro, > > > > > > Using Ninja to improve build times is a good suggestion. Can you share > > the > > > build times you have observed with and without using Ninja? I presume > you > > > have enabled compile-time options for GPU builds and Distributed MXNet > > for > > > the builds you have experimented with. > > > > > > See also: > > > https://ninja-build.org/manual.html > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Bhavin Thaker. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:57 AM, Pedro Larroy < > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Hi > > >> > > >> I would like to update the MXNet build instructions. > > >> > > >> In particular I was thinking that it would be a good idea to update > > >> the instructions to use CMake + Ninja. And add more information about > > >> the different build flavours. > > >> > > >> > > >> https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/install/index.html > > >> > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> > > >
