+Renato

 

I don’t have any problem supporting Ninja. I do think that hardcoded sections 
should be minimized or eliminated if convenient.

 

It is possible with parameters to select MSBuild, make, nmake, Ninja within a 
unified CMake builder.

 

A unified cmake builder like this does not need to be changed when a new/better 
generator type becomes available, neither does it impose one on all buildslaves.

 

Windows support for any non-MS packages can have gaps. For example, Ninja: 
Windows CMake 3.0.0 no longer ships Ninja. The Ninja from github doesn’t 
compile with the latest GCC or support msbuild particularly well.  Easy enough 
to workaround, stay with 2.8.8, but workarounds must be done for most anything 
on Windows.

 

Personally I prefer Ninja. I’d just like to make the builder have options to 
select CMake Generators.

 

-rick foos

 

From: lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:lldb-dev-boun...@cs.uiuc.edu] On 
Behalf Of Zachary Turner
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 5:32 PM
To: René J.V.
Cc: lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu; Nico Weber
Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] MSBuild vs. Ninja build-timings on Windows

 

+Nico Weber <mailto: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 
<mailto: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

Reply via email to