On Saturday, 4 April 2015 at 07:44:12 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
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
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.
At work I often switch between dozen of different projects a day
with small chunk of changes for each. That means that incremental
builds are never of any value.
Even if you consistently work with the same project it is
incredibly rare to have a changeset contained in a single module.
And if there are at least 5 changed modules (including
inter-dependencies) it becomes long enough already.
As for test codebase - I know that Martin has been testing his GC
improvements on Higgs (https://github.com/higgsjs/Higgs), could
be a suitable test subject for you too.