On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 02:01, Christian Gagneraud <chg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 01:45, Orgad Shaneh <org...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I compared qbs and cmake/ninja, and got these results (Debug build, no > > QbsPM and no Clang): > > > > Notice that qbs builds unit tests, which cmake doesn't. > > > > time qbs -f ../qt-creator/qtcreator.qbs profile:qt-5-11-1 > > modules.cpp.compilerWrapper:ccache > > cold ccache: > > real 5m26.149s > > user 125m3.443s > > sys 16m55.134s > > > > warm cache: > > real 1m40.335s > > user 17m20.419s > > sys 4m12.409s > > > > time cmake ../qt-creator -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_LAUNCHER=ccache > > -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER_LAUNCHER=ccache -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -G Ninja > > real 0m8.256s > > user 0m7.425s > > sys 0m0.827s > > > > time ninja > > cold cache: > > real 5m23.413s > > user 128m25.457s > > sys 16m11.551s > > > > time ninja: > > warm cache: > > real 0m45.964s > > user 7m12.563s > > sys 2m23.616s > > > > Thanks for reporting, i'm planning to run my own benchmark as well, > not to state who's the winner, just for curiosity. > One important metric IMHO is the ratio sys/user, as it shows I/O > bottlenecks (esp. relevant when doing debug builds with hot ccache). > In my setup i will use ram disks for ccache and build dir (source dir > has nearly no effects) > It used to be my typical config (had to fight for memory tho), until i > got a new machine with NVRam as mass storage. It's almost as fast as > ramdisks. > > As well, please note that the current CMake doesn't build as much > stuff as the qbs one. Not sure the difference is huge, but you need to > compare "equal jobs".
a `du -shc build-dir` would be interesting too. > > Chris _______________________________________________ Qbs mailing list Qbs@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/qbs