On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 19:54:09 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Friday, 3 April 2015 at 19:08:58 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
I just tried compiling one of my project. It has a makefile
that does separate compilation and a shell script I use for
unit testing which compiles everything in one go. The
makefile takes 5.3 seconds, does not including linking since
it builds a library. The shell script takes 1.3 seconds which
include compiling unit tests and linking as well.
change one file and see which one is faster with an
incremental build.
I don't care if incremental build is 10x faster if full build
still stays at ~1 second. However I do care (and consider
unacceptable) if support for incremental builds makes full
build 10 seconds long.
I'm of the opposite opinion. I don't care if full builds take 1h
as long as incremental builds are as fast as possible. Why would
I keep doing full builds? That's like git cloning multiple times.
What for?
What's clear is that I need to try Andrei's per-package idea, at
least as an option, if not the default. Having a large D codebase
to test it on would be nice as well, but I don't know of anything
bigger than Phobos.
Atila
