On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:18 AM, David Chisnall <thera...@freebsd.org>wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2013, at 21:35, Dimitry Andric <d...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > In any case, if anything like this is implemented, I would really prefer > > something like CMake does, e.g. give you a percentage counter that > > provides some information about how 'far' the build is progressing. > > I haven't seen this for a while, because I now use ninja exclusively for > building any projects that use CMake. The output of Ninja is pretty close > to my ideal for a build system, and so I'd recommend that anyone hacking on > this look at it. It looks something like this while building: > > $ ninja > [1/22] Building CXX object > lib/Target/Mips/AsmParser/CMakeFiles/LLVMMipsAsmParser.dir/MipsAsmParser.cpp.o > > The [1/22] part is a counter of the number of build steps done and updates > in place. The 'Building CXX object ...' part tells you what the current > rule is and what it's being applied to. This is only approximate, as it > usually does parallel builds, but it gives you some idea of what's > happening. > > the "Building CXX ... " is basically the same type of output that I was proposing. I am still unclear on how one can implement useful counters (see my other email) since the times of "build step" vary by 2-3 orders of magnitude. Anyways, maybe just counting the number of targets in the first 2-3 levels of the tree can give an idea. If a command produces warning output but exits with success, then that > command's output is dumped to stdout (explicitly serialised by Ninja so > that it's never interleaved with another command's output). > > If a command exits with a failure condition, then Ninja dumps the exact > command line that was used, along with all of the output, and then stops. > Another side benefit is that Ninja always uses absolute paths for invoking > the commands and for arguments, and so you can always just re-run that > single failing command. > > Oh, and when I do a build of LLVM/Clang on my laptop using Ninja, it takes > about 3-5 minutes, whereas when I do it with our build system it takes > about 15. When I do it on a 24-core server, it takes less than two minutes > with Ninja and with ours it takes about 15 (no speedup over my laptop). > I'd therefore suggest that there might be more pressing things that need > fixing with our antiquated build infrastructure than the prettiness of the > output... > these are orthogonal issues though, and so radically different in complexity that it does not seem a waste of energy to apply the patch i suggested while someone comes up with an improved build system. cheers luigi _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"