Re: [ccache] Why not cache link commands?

2012-09-18 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 18 September 2012 08:44:29 Andrew Stubbs wrote:
 Clearly there are some technical challenges in doing this: we'd have to
 hash all the object files and libraries (a la direct mode), but those
 problems are surmountable, I think.

or just re-use build-id ...

 The linker does not use any libraries not listed with gcc '-###' whatever.

mmm different gcc flags can implicitly expand into -l### or different crt 
objects, so you can't cache linking at the compiler driver level w/out re-
implementing much of the guts of gcc, and even then you'd break with 
moderately patched gcc versions.

 I'm also aware that it's not that interesting for many incremental
 builds, where the final link will always be different, but my use case
 is accelerating rebuilds of projects that my have many outputs, most of
 which are likely to be unaffected by small code changes. It's also worth
 noting that incremental builds are not the target use case for ccache in
 general.

gold should already support incremental linking (ala build-id), so i don't 
think that's already a fixed problem
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache


Re: [ccache] Why not cache link commands?

2012-09-18 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 18 September 2012 17:07:53 Andrew Stubbs wrote:
 On 18/09/12 21:04, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  On Tuesday 18 September 2012 08:44:29 Andrew Stubbs wrote:
  Clearly there are some technical challenges in doing this: we'd have to
  hash all the object files and libraries (a la direct mode), but those
  problems are surmountable, I think.
  
  or just re-use build-id ...
 
 Sorry, I'm probably being thick, but what do you mean?

the linker's --build-id and associated .note.gnu.build-id section.  you can't 
hash the entire object because it can change between compiles.  build-id lets 
you say regardless of the hash of the entire object, we know the content that 
matters is unchanged.

  The linker does not use any libraries not listed with gcc '-###'
  whatever.
  
  mmm different gcc flags can implicitly expand into -l### or different crt
  objects, so you can't cache linking at the compiler driver level w/out
  re- implementing much of the guts of gcc, and even then you'd break with
  moderately patched gcc versions.
 
 -### isn't meant to be a wildcard. That's an actual GCC option. I put
 quotes around it because most shells would interpret the hashes as the
 start of a comment.

hmm, gotcha.  it does seem to include all the necessary info.  whether it's 
easy for a machine to parse across gcc versions is a diff question :).  seems 
to have changed subtly over time between 3.3.6 and 4.7.1.

  I'm also aware that it's not that interesting for many incremental
  builds, where the final link will always be different, but my use case
  is accelerating rebuilds of projects that my have many outputs, most of
  which are likely to be unaffected by small code changes. It's also worth
  noting that incremental builds are not the target use case for ccache in
  general.
  
  gold should already support incremental linking (ala build-id), so i
  don't think that's already a fixed problem

err, typo here.  s/don't//.

 As I said, the interesting use case is *not* incremental links. The
 interesting use case is accelerating clean builds. ccache can never
 help where genuinely new inputs are involved.

right, i was just agreeing with you and providing more details as to how it 
already works today.
-mike


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
ccache mailing list
ccache@lists.samba.org
https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache