Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Neil wrote:
David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a ./mach build frontend that repackages
XUL and js code?
Does ./mach build chrome work?
make chrome/mach build chrome doesn't do
David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a
./mach build frontend
that repackages XUL and js code?
Does ./mach build chrome work? (I don't think it's parallelised though.)
Hopefully a combination of bug 929147 with bug 921003 will speed it up.
--
Warning:
(On win7, i7 @3.2GHz) Clobber build from 29 mins down to 24, no-op build from
some minutes to 16s! \o/
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Neil wrote:
David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a
./mach build frontend
that repackages XUL and js code?
Does ./mach build chrome work? (I don't think it's parallelised
though.) Hopefully a combination of bug
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:43:03 PM UTC+3, Mike Hommey wrote:
...
- Build with:
./mach build
After you built once, you can do edit-compile-edit-compile cycles with:
./mach build binaries
So what's the difference between |./mach build| and |./mach build binaries|?
would
On 10/21/2013 9:47 AM, Avi Hal wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:43:03 PM UTC+3, Mike Hommey wrote:
...
- Build with:
./mach build
After you built once, you can do edit-compile-edit-compile cycles with:
./mach build binaries
So what's the difference between |./mach
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a
./mach build frontend
that repackages XUL and js code?
On 10/21/13 6:53 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So what's the difference between |./mach build| and |./mach build binaries|?
would such difference exist also after updating mozillabuild with the new
On the Q4 goals list. Bug 929147.
On 10/21/2013 2:47 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a
./mach build frontend
that repackages XUL and js code?
On 10/21/13 6:53 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
So what's the difference between |./mach build| and
I tend to use something like
./mach build browser/base browser/components browser/themes
browser/locales browser/devtools
(obviously including only the directories where I changed stuff)
Which is fast and works.
~ Gijs
On 21/10/13 23:47 , David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
Wouldn't it be
Hi,
Episode 1 was the You want faster builds, don't you thread.
Episode 2 was the Faster builds, now thread.
Here comes episode 3.
I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were
left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last, as we are
now bringing those
faster builds, so thanks very much.
Cheers,
Chris P.
On 17-Oct-13 2:43 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
Hi,
Episode 1 was the You want faster builds, don't you thread.
Episode 2 was the Faster builds, now thread.
Here comes episode 3.
I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were
left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last, as we are
now bringing those to you.
In case you're interested how this happened... AIUI,
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:09:23PM -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Mike Hommey m...@glandium.org wrote:
I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were
left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last, as we are
now
On 07/10/13 14:11 , Honza Bambas wrote:
Is this supposed to work on Windows too?
a clobbered build of up to date m-c with export MOZ_PSEUDO_DERECURSE=1
gives me an error during configure phase (./mach build):
No:
On 10/2/2013 3:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
snip
Except if you're using pymake,
I just did a no-op ./mach build binaries on my debug build on a Mac, and
it took about 28 seconds.
$ time ./mach build binaries
0:01.96 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries
0:12.19 From ./dist/public: Kept 0 existing; Added/updated 0; Removed
0 files and 0 directories.
0:12.22 From ./dist/sdk:
8.8s here!
~1.5 is startup and checking the build backend is up to date (lots of stats)
~1.5s is processing install manifests.
Rest is make processing.
The fact that your machine spent ~20s doing install manifest processing
tells me:
a) Your directory tree wasn't cached (try running again)
this works great for me.. touching network/protocol/http/nsHttpChannel.cpp
and rebuilding with mach build binaries runs in 26 seconds compared to 61
with just mach build, and I see the same ~35 second savings when doing it
on a total nop build (39 vs 5). awesome.
-P
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:17
Hmm, I'm not sure what's going on. I ran it again four times in a row
and I got better results, but the timings show that there is a lot fo
difference between the slow and fast cases (no idea why)
$ time ./mach build binaries
0:00.81 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries
0:03.90 From ./dist/public:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:45AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I just did a no-op ./mach build binaries on my debug build on a Mac,
and it took about 28 seconds.
$ time ./mach build binaries
0:01.96 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries
0:12.19 From ./dist/public: Kept 0 existing; Added/updated
19 matches
Mail list logo
