On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:26 PM Adam Light wrote:
>
> One idea I had was to combine all files in HEADERS into a single giant .h
> file, and then call moc.exe once on that file. The single call to moc.exe
> would be executed in a single thread, but it would avoid the need to
> rediscover all of
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Adam Light wrote:
>
> We have almost 600 classes that use Q_OBJECT, so there are a lot of calls
> to moc. We probably don't strictly need the Q_OBJECT macro in some of those
> classes, but I would prefer not to start removing Q_OBJECT unless that's
> the last
On Monday, 9 December 2019 14:51:24 PST Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> If my memory serves me correctly, we found MOC drastically slower when
> we upgraded from Qt 4.8 to 5.x. We had quite a few directories in
> INCLUDEPATH, though nothing like the number you mentioned.
Qt 5's moc, unlike Qt 4's, does
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 5:09 AM Michael Jackson
wrote:
> What did you use to collect the sampling data? Our project also
> experiences long build times (30 minutes on a 12 Core Xeon machine) using
> Qt5. I would like to be able to zero in on some of the issues instead of
> guessing at them.
>
>
Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 at 5:15 PM
To: Qt Interest
Subject: Re: [Interest] Tricks to improve moc performance?
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Adam Light wrote:
Does anyone else have any ideas of how we could change our build to improve moc
performance when Windows decides
On 10/12/19 9:14 am, Adam Light wrote:
When I previously analyzed the sampling data during a moc.exe run, it
was clear that the vast majority of the time was spent satisfying the
includes, and most of that was checking whether a concatenation of an
include path and a file name are a valid
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:09 PM Adam Light wrote:
>
> Does anyone else have any ideas of how we could change our build to
> improve moc performance when Windows decides to be "slow"? Like, for
> example, is there any way to have the moc calls run with only a few moc
> processes running at once
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:08 PM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On Friday, 6 December 2019 15:10:41 PST Adam Light wrote:
> > > Yes:
> https://github.com/qt/qtbase/blob/dev/util/includemocs/includemocs.pl
> >
> > Thanks. That saved a lot of time.
> >
> > For what it's worth, after changing all of our
On 12/6/19 7:02 PM, Richard Weickelt wrote:
By the way: does anyone know about an implementation that avoids moc runs in
a similar way how ccache avoids compile runs ?
You mean concatenating header and source files containing a Q_OBJECT macro
and feeding moc the result?
No - the ideas would
On Friday, 6 December 2019 15:10:41 PST Adam Light wrote:
> > Yes: https://github.com/qt/qtbase/blob/dev/util/includemocs/includemocs.pl
>
> Thanks. That saved a lot of time.
>
> For what it's worth, after changing all of our code to directly #include
> the moc output, the total build time
On Friday, 6 December 2019 10:06:24 PST Richard Weickelt wrote:
> > This solution gets you a single build for all the the mocs, which is good,
> > but won't generate the best code that Peppe was talking about. You want
> > the moc for a given class to be in the class's own .cpp.
>
> Unless you
On Friday, 6 December 2019 10:21:24 PST Michael Jackson wrote:
> Dear Thiago,
> Could you expand a bit on your comment? We use CMake for our build
> system and the AUOT_MOC feature. I just would like to know what exactly I
> am missing by doing this.
Run the includemocs script that I linked
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:57 AM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On Friday, 6 December 2019 06:30:36 PST Adam Light wrote:
> > Yes, that's definitely on my TODO list, though I don't think it's going
> to
> > do much to address the current situation in which moc itself is the main
> > bottleneck. But any
On 12/6/19, 12:52 PM, "Interest on behalf of Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2019 01:16:31 PST Kevin Funk via Interest wrote:
> On that note, CMake goes one step further and removes the need to do this
> manually. Using CMake's AUTOMOC feature, CMake will
> This solution gets you a single build for all the the mocs, which is good,
> but
> won't generate the best code that Peppe was talking about. You want the moc
> for a given class to be in the class's own .cpp.
Unless you build with link-time optimization enabled, I suppose. Because
then
> By the way: does anyone know about an implementation that avoids moc runs in
> a similar way how ccache avoids compile runs ?
You mean concatenating header and source files containing a Q_OBJECT macro
and feeding moc the result? I cannot imagine that this would be a safe
transformation in
On Friday, 6 December 2019 06:30:36 PST Adam Light wrote:
> Yes, that's definitely on my TODO list, though I don't think it's going to
> do much to address the current situation in which moc itself is the main
> bottleneck. But any improvement will help.
>
> Does anyone know of a script or other
On Friday, 6 December 2019 01:52:52 PST Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote:
> Sorry, not the code generated by moc -- the code generated by the
>
> compiler/linker. See e.g. here:
> > https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/qtbase/+/152423
it also enables the "private member never used' warning
On Friday, 6 December 2019 01:16:31 PST Kevin Funk via Interest wrote:
> On that note, CMake goes one step further and removes the need to do this
> manually. Using CMake's AUTOMOC feature, CMake will automatically create ONE
> mocs_compilations.cpp file per target which in turn includes all
On Friday, 6 December 2019 00:42:22 PST Uwe Rathmann wrote:
> A side note: the code of Qwt project runs with all Qt versions >= 4.4
> and therefore allows to compare the impact of the Qt headers on the
> compile time. It is some time ago, when I did this, but the differences
> were significant.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:42 AM Uwe Rathmann
wrote:
> On 12/6/19 2:09 AM, Adam Light wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else have any ideas of how we could change our build to
> > improve moc performance when Windows decides to be "slow"?
>
> Something you can try is to include the moc file at the end of
On 12/6/19 9:48 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote:
This trick is used in several places in Qt itself (look for "includemoc"
in commits). Not only it helps build times but also it produces slightly
better code overall.
By the way: does anyone know about an implementation that avoids
Hi,
Il 06/12/19 10:48, Dmitriy Purgin ha scritto:
Hi Giuseppe,
> This trick is used in several places in Qt itself (look for "includemoc"
> in commits). Not only it helps build times but also it produces slightly
> better code overall.
Could you please elaborate what exactly do you mean
Hi Giuseppe,
> This trick is used in several places in Qt itself (look for "includemoc"
> in commits). Not only it helps build times but also it produces slightly
> better code overall.
Could you please elaborate what exactly do you mean under 'better code'?
How does including the xxx_moc.cpp
On Friday, 6 December 2019 09:48:51 CET Giuseppe D'Angelo via Interest wrote:
> Il 06/12/19 09:42, Uwe Rathmann ha scritto:
> > Something you can try is to include the moc file at the end of your cpp
> > file. This can be done like this:
> >
> > #include "moc_XYZ.cpp"
> >
> > This type of
Il 06/12/19 09:42, Uwe Rathmann ha scritto:
Something you can try is to include the moc file at the end of your cpp
file. This can be done like this:
#include "moc_XYZ.cpp"
This type of construction is at least supported by qmake.
This does not reduce the number of moc runs, but it reduces
On 12/6/19 2:09 AM, Adam Light wrote:
Does anyone else have any ideas of how we could change our build to
improve moc performance when Windows decides to be "slow"?
Something you can try is to include the moc file at the end of your cpp
file. This can be done like this:
#include
On 2019-12-06 02:09, Adam Light wrote:
We have several machines running Windows 10 that are quite powerful
(eg. 8 or 16 core (16 or 32 thread) processors, lots of RAM, NVMe SSD
storage). However, since upgrading to Windows 1903, we have noticed
that sometimes the compile time of our large Qt
We have several machines running Windows 10 that are quite powerful (eg. 8
or 16 core (16 or 32 thread) processors, lots of RAM, NVMe SSD storage).
However, since upgrading to Windows 1903, we have noticed that sometimes
the compile time of our large Qt 5.12 based application increases
29 matches
Mail list logo
