+Nico Weber <tha...@google.com> Nico might be able to give you some more insight on exactly why Ninja is faster than MSBuild. My (limited) understanding is that it has better dependency tracking, but I'm not sure where the "betterness" comes from.
I'm not sure how MSBuild compares to GNU Make. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses Make to build LLDB on Windows or if it even works. I know at some point, even if way off into the future, it would be nice to get rid of the configure/make build entirely. The only reason it's still around is because it supports a few features not supported by the CMake build. If / when those issues get resolved, I think the LLVM side will try to remove it, and then we should follow suit. On Fri Jan 02 2015 at 3:23:05 PM René J.V. <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday January 02 2015 19:53:00 Zachary Turner wrote: > > Thanks! > > > > Here are build timings on my local machine comparing Ninja against > MSBuild > > on Windows. > > That's for building lldb I presume? How does MSBuild compare to (GNU) make? > > > Ninja MSBuild > > Clean Build 0:11:4.16 0:14:4.33 > > That's a larger difference than I would have expected - it seems the time > spent compiling is short compared to the time that could be spent tracking > dependencies? > > R >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
