Piling on to the list of advantages of building with clang locally:
another one is that you can build with the static analysis plugin
enabled, resulting in your local build catching "one-argument
constructor needs to be marked either 'explicit' or 'MOZ_IMPLICIT'"
and similar static analysis errors
On 03/03/2016 09:59 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Erik Rose wrote:
An additional bonus is that our ability to build with clang would break
less often. That's been the cause of more than a few scuttled DXR indexing
jobs.
We can and should have both Clang and GCC bui
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Erik Rose wrote:
> An additional bonus is that our ability to build with clang would break
> less often. That's been the cause of more than a few scuttled DXR indexing
> jobs.
>
We can and should have both Clang and GCC builds running in automation,
even if one of
An additional bonus is that our ability to build with clang would break less
often. That's been the cause of more than a few scuttled DXR indexing jobs.
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 17:50 , Gregory Szorc wrote:
>
> switching developer builds to prefer
> Clang over GCC
_
Le 03/03/2016 à 09:46, Andreas Tolfsen a écrit :
> On 3 March 2016 at 00:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> More importantly, changing the official toolchain has implications on
>>> performance.
>> Without any real evidence for this, I'm told th
On 3 March 2016 at 00:13, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> More importantly, changing the official toolchain has implications on
>> performance.
>
> Without any real evidence for this, I'm told that GCC still produces
> better (i.e., faster) output.
On 03/03/16 01:57, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
More importantly, changing the official toolchain has implications on
performance.
Sorry, I meant for general automation. Our final spins (especially
LTO/PGO builds) should remain whatever gives us maxim
Note that, as you say, the debugging information produced by the compiler
and the debugger that consumes it are completely orthogonal. I've tried
several times to use lldb but I keep coming back to GDB. Particularly now
with RR+GDB it's light years ahead.
I find that GDB works quite well with the
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> Over in bug 1253064 I'm proposing switching developer builds to prefer
> Clang over GCC because the limited numbers we have say that Clang can build
> mozilla-central several minutes faster than GCC (13 minutes vs 17.5 on my
> I7-6700K). I'm n
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> More importantly, changing the official toolchain has implications on
> performance.
Sorry, I meant for general automation. Our final spins (especially
LTO/PGO builds) should remain whatever gives us maximum perf. (not
making any claims myself
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> More importantly, changing the official toolchain has implications on
> performance.
Without any real evidence for this, I'm told that GCC still produces
better (i.e., faster) output. But we could switch try builds to clang
if the time saving
Is the debugging information generated by clang as good or better than
GCC's? My experience with lldb has been terrible, but that may have more to
do with the debugger itself than with the information clang generates.
-Bill
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> Over in bug 1253
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 03:21:14PM -0800, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
>
> > For standard development builds, --enable-debug build speed is (to me)
> > the primary motivator since we've guaranteed that they're equally
> > correct. (within reason) I'll
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote:
> For standard development builds, --enable-debug build speed is (to me)
> the primary motivator since we've guaranteed that they're equally
> correct. (within reason) I'll gladly run some extra tests to gather
> data about this.
>
> FWIW, with
For standard development builds, --enable-debug build speed is (to me)
the primary motivator since we've guaranteed that they're equally
correct. (within reason) I'll gladly run some extra tests to gather
data about this.
FWIW, with a 26% speedup, it would definitely seems like it'd be worth
inves
Over in bug 1253064 I'm proposing switching developer builds to prefer
Clang over GCC because the limited numbers we have say that Clang can build
mozilla-central several minutes faster than GCC (13 minutes vs 17.5 on my
I7-6700K). I'm not proposing switching what we use to produce builds in
automa
16 matches
Mail list logo
