Re: sccache as ccache
On 2017/08/06 2:06, ISHIKAWA,chiaki wrote: On 2017/08/04 20:46, Simon Sapin wrote: On 04/08/2017 13:02, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:25:52AM +0200, Simon Sapin wrote: `mk_add_options export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache` causes an error: It's `mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache"`. That worked, thanks! I now have: ac_add_options --with-ccache=/usr/bin/ccache mk_add_options "export CCACHE_PREFIX=icecc" mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache" mk_add_options MOZ_MAKE_FLAGS="-j100" Does using only the two lines below > ac_add_options --with-ccache=/usr/bin/ccache and > mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache" have the effect of using ccache for ordinary c++/cc compilation and using sccache for rustc compilation? I have used ccache extensively (with its setting in various scripts and configuration files and so if I can introduce sccache in an unobtrusive manner, I would use sccache. But come to think of it, if sscacche honors CCACHE_DIR and other ccache environment variables, then I will have collisons of the cachefiles, correct? Hmm... ) TIA OK, as I further checked, sccache uses SCCACHE_DIR environment variable for cache storage on local disk while ccache uses CCACHE_DIR. So I can avoid conflict and the above two lines in my mozconfig seemed to use sscache for rust compilation, and I see the directory specified by SCCACHE_DIR populated by cache subdirectories. However, I am not sure if the cache is working correctly. With ccache, we can specify a log file in the environment variable CCACHE_LOGFILE to specify. We can study the log file to see if the cache is indeed working (hits, etc). Is there an equivalent of CCACHE_LOGFILE with sccache? There was no trace of such logfile in the directory specified by SCCACHE_DIR. TIA ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: sccache as ccache
On 2017/08/04 20:46, Simon Sapin wrote: On 04/08/2017 13:02, Mike Hommey wrote: On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 11:25:52AM +0200, Simon Sapin wrote: `mk_add_options export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache` causes an error: It's `mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache"`. That worked, thanks! I now have: ac_add_options --with-ccache=/usr/bin/ccache mk_add_options "export CCACHE_PREFIX=icecc" mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache" mk_add_options MOZ_MAKE_FLAGS="-j100" Does using only the two lines below > ac_add_options --with-ccache=/usr/bin/ccache and > mk_add_options "export RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache" have the effect of using ccache for ordinary c++/cc compilation and using sccache for rustc compilation? I have used ccache extensively (with its setting in various scripts and configuration files and so if I can introduce sccache in an unobtrusive manner, I would use sccache. But come to think of it, if sscacche honors CCACHE_DIR and other ccache environment variables, then I will have collisons of the cachefiles, correct? Hmm... ) TIA ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support
On 05.08.2017 07:27, kichu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks, You're right. I have a sound card that supports mixing and all other necessary stuff in hardware, why shoud I waste my CPU for doing that with pulseaudio? Long time ago I switched from Opera to Firefox... maybe it's time to switch back. haven't followed the whole thread, but let me add a few thoughts: Few month ago I had a discussion w/ PA folks about non-Linux platforms. It seems that it works well on win32, mac, bsd, etc (not tested myself). So, why not just using libpulse directly (w/o any extra layers) ? Folks who don't wanna have the PA daemon in between could patch up libpulse to talk to the actual device directly. That way, we'd have moved out all the platform specific logic to an already widely adopted subsystem and therefore less own code to maintain. --mtx ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Rationalising Linux audio backend support
W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 10:58:05 UTC+2 użytkownik daniel@freepascal.org napisał: > Therefore if you can't maintain ALSA support, as I see it, you are doing a > poor job support Linux. The ALSA API isn't rocket science either, so if > attempt to look at it from a developer point of view, I don't see much hassle > as well. You're right. I have a sound card that supports mixing and all other necessary stuff in hardware, why shoud I waste my CPU for doing that with pulseaudio? Long time ago I switched from Opera to Firefox... maybe it's time to switch back. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
