tfiala added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248741, @ki.stfu wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248657, @tberghammer wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248654, @ki.stfu wrote: > > > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248648, @zturner wrote: > > > > > > > One possible solution is to make an lldb-all target. > > > > > > > > > As I said, it would much better rather than changing lldb dependencies. > > > But I'm still not sure, do we really need something like lldb-all? Why we > > > can't use "ninja" (i.e. without arguments) for building a whole LLDB? > > > > > > "ninja" without any argument builds everything including llvm, clang and a > > lot of related tools what increase the link time by a lot (assuming > > something changed in the llvm/clang repository since the last build). > > > cmake/ninja build has no a big difference between "ninja" and "ninja lldb": > > That's a 12.8% increase in build-related jobs in 'ninja' vs. 'ninja lldb'. And more linking, which tends to be relatively slow. On 4-core MacBook Pros and VMs, that's a non-trivial difference. > $ ninja -j1 > [1/3214] Building CXX object > lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C > ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user. > $ ninja -j1 lldb > [1/2848] Building CXX object > lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C > ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user. > > So it doesn't matter what to do: ninja or ninja lldb. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
