On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gary, > > On 26.09.2013 02:08, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> I think this is excellent work! Solid analysis. I know there's been some >> thought given to caching subst() before; it's trickier than one might think >> but in many cases it should work, and it definitely speeds things up. I'm >> also impressed by a 30% memory reduction -- interested to hear how that >> comes out. >> > > it will definitely take some more time. Not only subst() is quite tricky, > but getting cyclic dependencies out of the way for garbage-collecting Nodes > means a lot of fiddling. But there should be some light at the end of the > tunnel soon.... > > By the way: Does anybody know of a use case for having more than one FS > during a build or interactive mode? I've wondered many times now, why on > earth we keep a reference to the current DefaultFS in each Node? After all I > don't see any place in the source code where I could initialize a second > one, or one that's different from the Default FS... > > >> Have you seen the speed and memory tests the buildbots used to run? Not >> sure what their status is these days but perhaps your tests could be >> integrated into them at some point. > > > Yes, I considered using them. But as far as I know, they rely on everything > that's being run to be a packaged archive and you always have to write some > sort of config file. That's what put me off a little bit, and so I stuck to > my own scripts/packages and developed them further...
what are the main things which make waf, and wonderbuild so much faster than scons? a test is here, but already a little outdated: http://retropaganda.info/~bohan/work/psycle/branches/bohan/wonderbuild/benchmarks/time.xml rupert. _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
