Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Lubos Lunak]

On Saturday 10 of September 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
   Since there (AFAIR) haven't been any actual data presented in the
  discussion

 here are some number for my linux buildbot.

 Ccache hit statistics from a buildbot is probably the least realistic example 
possible. Of course the hit ratio is almost 100% when it repeatedly rebuilds 
almost the same source. For normal development builds the hit ratio should be 
much much lower, for many reasons (building noticeably less often and 
building when something does change being the primary two). I consider even 
my 40% hit ratio to be unusually high.

 The only useful numbers I can see is the ~5% ccache overhead, which should 
mean here the break even ratio is 10%, which I guess should be doable for 
LO, but without any real numbers this is still just guesswork.

 Note: when icecream is enable configure.in does _not_ auto-enable
 ccache (iow if you want ccache _with_ icecream you need to actively
 say --enable-ccahe or set up up transparently on your environment

 I have manual setup for either/both icecream and cccache, if this was 
directed at me.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lu...@suse.cz
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
 On Saturday 10 of September 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
   Since there (AFAIR) haven't been any actual data presented in the
  discussion

 here are some number for my linux buildbot.

  Ccache hit statistics from a buildbot is probably the least realistic example
 possible. Of course the hit ratio is almost 100% when it repeatedly rebuilds
 almost the same source. For normal development builds the hit ratio should be
 much much lower, for many reasons (building noticeably less often and
 building when something does change being the primary two). I consider even
 my 40% hit ratio to be unusually high.

  The only useful numbers I can see is the ~5% ccache overhead, which should

Agreed. that was indeed the most interesing part. the fact that ccache
give good benefit for a completely hot cache is indeed quite expected.

 mean here the break even ratio is 10%, which I guess should be doable for
 LO, but without any real numbers this is still just guesswork.

Well that is real number for overhead... since the difference between
the no ccache run and the empty cache ccache run is purely the ccache
overhead. so it is a very good indicator of the ccache overhead.


 Note: when icecream is enable configure.in does _not_ auto-enable
 ccache (iow if you want ccache _with_ icecream you need to actively
 say --enable-ccahe or set up up transparently on your environment

  I have manual setup for either/both icecream and cccache, if this was
 directed at me.

I was wondering if the difference of overhead observed between your
numbers and mine may have been related to ice-cream...


All that being said. I am not overly attached to the default. I mean I
can just as easily add --enable-ccache to my autogen.lastrun as you
can add --disable-ccache to yours.
and as I said earlier, as partial rebuild becomes more reliable it may
very well make sens to have it 'disabled' by default. The problem is
that today, when someone hit a build issue, the first advice we give
is make clean  make... which is typically 4 to 5 time more painful
if you did not use ccache That is why I think that --enable-ccache
is a much more causal/new-dev friendly.
and more experience dev can pretty easily chose the setting that fit
best their build pattern

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 12:56 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

 2/ I had a spike in IRC questions/confusions from new tentative
 contributors on that topic, so I wanted to make it as newbie friendly
 as possible. iow a 'just fscking work' approach.

Cache compression is advertised as saving space in the cache in return
for a modest increase in compilation time.  For me, it is the clear
choice: I see the improved cache usage, and I do not notice the
increased time.

I wonder if any of our hackers using ccache would have the contrary
opinion.  IOW, should our configuration enable compression
unconditionally?  As an option to autogen.sh?  (FWIW, I have changed
my local set_soenv.in to enable compression unconditionally, and I
have completed one successful build.)

Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 12:56 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

 2/ I had a spike in IRC questions/confusions from new tentative
 contributors on that topic, so I wanted to make it as newbie friendly
 as possible. iow a 'just fscking work' approach.

 Cache compression is advertised as saving space in the cache in return
 for a modest increase in compilation time.  For me, it is the clear
 choice: I see the improved cache usage, and I do not notice the
 increased time.

Well, my boxes are usually cpu bound (even with a fully hot ccache)
and I have plenty of space for my ccache, so that is not that clear a
choice to me.


 I wonder if any of our hackers using ccache would have the contrary
 opinion.  IOW, should our configuration enable compression
 unconditionally?  As an option to autogen.sh?  (FWIW, I have changed
 my local set_soenv.in to enable compression unconditionally, and I
 have completed one successful build.)

you can set that up with an env variable right ? so you can easily
make ccache behave the way you want, 'automatically', for you. (i.e
export CCACHE_COMPRESS=1 in your bashrc)

I don't do that in configure for the same reason we don't change
CCACHE_DIR or the cache dir size.
Using ccache if available is one thing... but trying to
'auto-magically' optimize ccache is another can of worms altogether...


Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

Talking about compression of the ccache cache, ...
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 11:35 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 
 Well, my boxes are usually cpu bound (even with a fully hot ccache)
 and I have plenty of space for my ccache, so that is not that clear a
 choice to me.

So, unconditional compression is no good.

 you can set that up with an env variable right ? so you can easily
 make ccache behave the way you want, 'automatically', for you. (i.e
 export CCACHE_COMPRESS=1 in your bashrc)

Yes, it is the existence of the envvar that controls.

Setting it in .bashrc makes a lot of sense in that the relative
availability of I/O capacity vs. CPU capacity does not depend on what
product the user is building.  The use of .bashrc is so easy and
natural (thank you for reminding me about it!) that I think LO should
not even provide a configuration option for compression.

I notice, BTW, that How to build LibreOffice
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build no
longer says that we automatically enable ccache if it is found on the
system.  Should that statement be added back to the page, now that it
is true?

 
 I don't do that in configure for the same reason we don't change
 CCACHE_DIR or the cache dir size.
 Using ccache if available is one thing... but trying to
 'auto-magically' optimize ccache is another can of worms altogether...

Agree.  Especially so, considering that sometimes a cache may be
shared between different users and different systems.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 I notice, BTW, that How to build LibreOffice
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build no
 longer says that we automatically enable ccache if it is found on the
 system.
  Should that statement be added back to the page, now that it
 is true?

Sure.

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Lubos Lunak]

On Friday 09 of September 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com 
wrote:
  On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 12:56 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
  2/ I had a spike in IRC questions/confusions from new tentative
  contributors on that topic, so I wanted to make it as newbie friendly
  as possible. iow a 'just fscking work' approach.
 
  Cache compression is advertised as saving space in the cache in return
  for a modest increase in compilation time.  For me, it is the clear
  choice: I see the improved cache usage, and I do not notice the
  increased time.

 Well, my boxes are usually cpu bound (even with a fully hot ccache)
 and I have plenty of space for my ccache, so that is not that clear a
 choice to me.

 Since there (AFAIR) haven't been any actual data presented in the discussion 
about enabling ccache, let me present some. I admit they are somewhat 
special, but they are real nevertheless. So, the build setup is Intel Xeon 
@2.53GHz (4 cores), 12G RAM, quite powerful icecream network 
(--with-max-jobs=40) and HDD with 120MB/s speed reported by hdparm (but it's 
not SSD, so the seek time is awful as it is with HDDs). I also build 
with --enable-debug.

- cd svx; make clean; make  (just to make the disk caches hot)
- make clean; time make  (i.e. no ccache)
real0m52.378s
user1m37.430s
sys 0m21.630s
- make clean; ccache -C; time cmakeset make (cmakeset enables ccache use here)
real1m1.170s
user1m58.422s
sys 0m27.661s
- make clean; time cmakeset make
real0m14.562s
user0m28.270s
sys 0m6.972s

 So if ccache has 0% hit ratio, there is 17% overhead in this specific case. 
With 100% hit ratio, 73% is saved. That, if my math is right, means at least 
19% ccache hit ratio is required for breaking even.

 My ccache -s reports
cache hit (direct)173894
cache hit (preprocessed)   43418
cache miss323627

 which is 40% hit ratio, but this is with using ccache only explicitly for 
full rebuilds (i.e. when I develop e.g. in sw/ and build just there, it's 
without ccache). I'm also not sure how many hits come from rebuilding 
everything from scratch, which is not something people without this powerful 
build setup would do that easily (I sometimes just give up on a problem and 
rebuilding everything, and after pull -r I usually also rebuild from scratch 
in another dir before switching to it). Finally, it doesn't say anything 
about how many of those hits are tiny .c files and how many of the misses are 
huge .cxx files, which are more likely to be misses because of having more 
dependencies.

 Could somebody else, preferably with a somewhat more common system :), post 
their results, so that we can compare? I assume the ccache overhead (caused 
by I/O I'd say) is exceptionally high here, but I still doubt ccache warrants 
being enabled by default just like that.

 I don't do that in configure for the same reason we don't change
 CCACHE_DIR or the cache dir size.
 Using ccache if available is one thing... but trying to
 'auto-magically' optimize ccache is another can of worms altogether...

 I think the case above shows that there are some worms even in the one thing.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lu...@suse.cz
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 12:47 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com 
 wrote:
  I notice, BTW, that How to build LibreOffice
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build no
  longer says that we automatically enable ccache if it is found on the
  system.
   Should that statement be added back to the page, now that it
  is true?
 
 Sure.

Uh oh.  That page is restricted to administrators.

Just as well, as I would have had to send a message to the
discuss list saying that I do not know anything about the
Mac and so had not restored the simultaneously deleted text
about the Mac, and inviting someone who knows something to
write something.

Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 12:47 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com 
 wrote:
  I notice, BTW, that How to build LibreOffice
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build no
  longer says that we automatically enable ccache if it is found on the
  system.
   Should that statement be added back to the page, now that it
  is true?

 Sure.

 Uh oh.  That page is restricted to administrators.

no it is not. you just need to register to the wiki... but there is no
special restriction on that.

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
  So if ccache has 0% hit ratio, there is 17% overhead in this specific case.
 With 100% hit ratio, 73% is saved. That, if my math is right, means at least
 19% ccache hit ratio is required for breaking even.

I'm am gathering numbers, in the mean time
http://tinderbox.libreoffice.org/MASTER/status.html give me some good
data about the ccache hit.
by looking at the time it take for each build iteration... most of
them show that the hit ration is almost always very very high (90%+),
unless some commit touch a commonly included header.

Now granted, once we can reliably do incremental build, the question
of the effectiveness of ccache will be much more acute.
presumable incremental build only try to compile stuff that _need_ to
be compiled and therefore should be a ccache miss... so with perfect
incremental build the ccache hit should be 0%

when that is true, we could indeed change the default for ccache to disable

FYI: my ccachs -s for my MacOSX buildbot is

n_th@tpamac ~/.ssh $ccache -s
cache directory /Volumes/ccache_ramdisk
cache hit (direct)481347
cache hit (preprocessed)   19049
cache miss 28588
called for link25314
multiple source files102
compile failed  8524
preprocessor error  4318
bad compiler arguments  1768
unsupported source language  408
autoconf compile/link  35802
unsupported compiler option60295
no input file   7446
files in cache 43163
cache size   1.8 Gbytes
max cache size   2.3 Gbytes


so a hit ration of  94.6%  (481347 + 19049) / (481347 + 19049 + 25588)

(note that cache had been wiped out about 2 days ago due to an IPL of
the box -- the cache is in ramdisk, so it does not survive a reboot)

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 20:22 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
 On Friday 09 of September 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 
  Could somebody else, preferably with a somewhat more common system :), post 
 their results, so that we can compare? I assume the ccache overhead (caused 
 by I/O I'd say) is exceptionally high here, but I still doubt ccache warrants 
 being enabled by default just like that.
 
  I don't do that in configure for the same reason we don't change
  CCACHE_DIR or the cache dir size.
  Using ccache if available is one thing... but trying to
  'auto-magically' optimize ccache is another can of worms altogether...
 
  I think the case above shows that there are some worms even in the one thing.
 
 

Well, let me throw some more numbers on the pile, about
space, number of cached files, and hits.  Short version:
cache compression reduces cache size by very roughly a
factor of 5.

My RAM is so small, at 512MB, that I omit timings; besides I
kept using the system for other things at the same time.
All compiles yesterday were with cache compression turned on.

Size is in KB as reported by `du --summarize ~/.ccache`.
Files, hits, and misses are from `ccache -s`.

I started yesterday with a cache holding files from a number
of previous builds of LibreOffice, some of them compressed,
but lots not (just because I keep forgetting to set
CCACHE_COMPRESS; yes, I have now added that to my .bashrc):
size   : 9563228
files  : 79453
hits   : 54662 + 510
misses : 39198
I calculate average file size 120.02KB

After some unsuccessful attempts to rebuild:
size   : 9618256
files  : 81585
hits   : 54874 + 629
misses : 39990
I calculate average file size 117.85KB and average size
21.03KB for the 2184 new files.

After successful complete build, which cleaned out part of
the cache:
size   : 9123940
files  : 99112
hits   : 62377 + 3080
misses : 48614
I calculate average file size 92.06KB.

FWIW, and HTH
Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 14:22 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 
 Now granted, once we can reliably do incremental build, the question
 of the effectiveness of ccache will be much more acute.
 presumable incremental build only try to compile stuff that _need_ to
 be compiled and therefore should be a ccache miss... so with perfect
 incremental build the ccache hit should be 0%

Not quite, I think.  Consider a header file changed within
in #if-skipped region in a way which does not change the
number of skipped lines.  I expect this would trigger a
recompile and that ccache, other things being equal, would
find a hit on the cache.  Does this sound plausible.

Still, I would expect the hit rate to go really close to 0.

Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 14:22 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:

 Now granted, once we can reliably do incremental build, the question
 of the effectiveness of ccache will be much more acute.
 presumable incremental build only try to compile stuff that _need_ to
 be compiled and therefore should be a ccache miss... so with perfect
 incremental build the ccache hit should be 0%

 Not quite, I think.  Consider a header file changed within
 in #if-skipped region in a way which does not change the
 number of skipped lines.  I expect this would trigger a
 recompile and that ccache, other things being equal, would
 find a hit on the cache.  Does this sound plausible.

 Still, I would expect the hit rate to go really close to 0.

And as Lubos remarked earlier... you need to be in the 20% hit rate to
get your money-back...

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
  Since there (AFAIR) haven't been any actual data presented in the discussion

here are some number for my linux buildbot.

no ccache, clean full build

real56m2.046s
user187m2.925s
sys 20m45.332s

ccache, empty cache, clean full build
real59m8.259s
user193m59.283s
sys 23m41.392s

cache directory /home/n_th/.ccache
cache hit 78
cache miss 11983
called for link  480
multiple source files  3
compile failed   845
preprocessor error28
not a C/C++ file 103
autoconf compile/link616
unsupported compiler option  602
no input file   1247
files in cache 23966
cache size 629.2 Mbytes
max cache size   8.0 Gbytes

ccache fully hot, clean full build


real14m9.809s
user35m0.468s
sys 10m8.120s

cache directory /home/n_th/.ccache
cache hit  11915
cache miss 12186
called for link  959
multiple source files  6
compile failed  1687
preprocessor error56
not a C/C++ file 206
autoconf compile/link   1196
unsupported compiler option 1203
no input file   2492
files in cache 24372
cache size 630.0 Mbytes
max cache size   8.0 Gbytes




Note: when icecream is enable configure.in does _not_ auto-enable
ccache (iow if you want ccache _with_ icecream you need to actively
say --enable-ccahe or set up up transparently on your environment
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Francois Tigeot]

Hi all,

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
 On 2011-08-08 at 11:33 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:
 
   I've pushed
   http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378
  ca38f59518b018fccca8f
  
   This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
   was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
   This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
   case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX
  
   I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for anybody. 
 
 Well, I am not that happy about using ccache by default either ;-)  It
 collides with the icecream support,

I'm not happy about this commit either: when packaging LibreOffice under pkgsrc,
it doubles the size of the build tree for no gain in speed.

The pkgsrc framework sanitizes the environment; $HOME is a temporary directory
which is always removed and created anew for each build.

I'm using ccache for development builds (from git), and I _don't_ want to use
it when creating packages on the same machine.

Could this change be reverted ? Instead of improving things, it degrades them.

-- 
Francois Tigeot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org 
 wrote:
 Hi all,

 On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
 On 2011-08-08 at 11:33 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:

   I've pushed
   http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378
  ca38f59518b018fccca8f
  
   This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
   was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
   This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
   case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX
 
   I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for anybody.

 Well, I am not that happy about using ccache by default either ;-)  It
 collides with the icecream support,

 I'm not happy about this commit either: when packaging LibreOffice under 
 pkgsrc,
 it doubles the size of the build tree for no gain in speed.


then use --disable-ccache

as in
CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-ccache

:-)

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Francois Tigeot]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:00:54PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
  On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org 
  wrote:
 
  I'm not happy about this commit either: when packaging LibreOffice under 
  pkgsrc,
  it doubles the size of the build tree for no gain in speed.
 
 then use --disable-ccache
 
 as in
 CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-ccache

Nice, I don't even have to do the job anymore ;-)

Still, this ccache stuff is too clever for its own good IMHO.

-- 
Francois Tigeot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:00:54PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
  On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org 
  wrote:
 
  I'm not happy about this commit either: when packaging LibreOffice under 
  pkgsrc,
  it doubles the size of the build tree for no gain in speed.

 then use --disable-ccache

 as in
 CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --disable-ccache

 Nice, I don't even have to do the job anymore ;-)

 Still, this ccache stuff is too clever for its own good IMHO.

for reference here is the motivations that lead me to do it

1/ the configure.in help advertised that we where doing it (as in
claimed that if ccache was present we would automatically use it)
2/ I had a spike in IRC questions/confusions from new tentative
contributors on that topic, so I wanted to make it as newbie friendly
as possible. iow a 'just fscking work' approach.
3/ I had issue with MacOS: in order to use ccache I had to set CC and
CXX before autogen (or as autogen.sh parameters). but doing so meant
that I had to take into account which compiler should be use. and on
Mac that depend on the SDK being used... so basically I had to do
manually the job of configure... to set the proper CC and CXX manually
4/ I considered that one-time builder were not the audience I cared
about, and that distrib-builder are savvy enough to make the build
system do what they want (iow add --disable-ccache if they decided
that ccache is not useful to them)

and really it is not _that_ clever:

if ccache is disabled or icecream is enabled or there is no ccache on
the system we do nothing special
else
if CC or CCX  are manually preset we do nothing special
(presumably if you bothered to explicitly pre-set it and wanted ccache
you would have set it so)
else
(that was added later on remark that CCACHE_DIR may be to
small to be useful)
if the ccache size is less than 1GB then we do nothing and warn about it
else
 if ccache size is between 1GB and 5GB then we warn that
you should prolly set a bigger ccache size especially if you intend to
do debug/symbol build fi
 if CC or CXX respectively point to ccache already (case
when you alias gcc to ccache) then we do nothing special
 else
 we prepend ccache  to CC or CXX respectively
 fi
fi
fi
fi


Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Francois Tigeot]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:56:50PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Francois Tigeot ftig...@wolfpond.org 
 wrote:
 
  Still, this ccache stuff is too clever for its own good IMHO.
 
 for reference here is the motivations that lead me to do it

[Snip all sorts of good reasons]

Well, don't be bothered too much by what I said, sometimes there aren't
perfect solutions

-- 
Francois Tigeot
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Jan Holesovsky]

Hi Norbert, Lubos,

On 2011-08-08 at 11:33 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote:

  I've pushed
  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378
 ca38f59518b018fccca8f
 
  This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
  was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
  This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
  case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX
 
  I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for anybody. 

Well, I am not that happy about using ccache by default either ;-)  It
collides with the icecream support, and while it would be possible to
combine ccache and icecream [1], it is generally something that will
save you just very little with big enough icecream farm.

For now I've changed it so that when there is --enable-icecream, the
ccache is disabled, unless explicitly enabled; but it is quite
inconsistent:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=d865fed229035440eccb8a89aa3f44f64e0f696c

Regards,
Kendy

[1] http://en.opensuse.org/Icecream#How_to_combine_icecream_with_ccache


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 11:40 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
 Hi Lubos,
 (snip)
 
 Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
 you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)


Just a note about what I have observed, for anybody who
happens to care.


I have configured LO with options 

--disable-mozilla
--enable-symbols
--enable-dbgutil
--enable-crashdump
--disable-build-mozilla
--without-junit

and completed my first build of LO using ccache up to the
step `make`.  Cache statistics look like ...

cache directory /home/terry/.ccache
cache hit (direct)  6158
cache hit (preprocessed)  37
cache miss 11986
called for link  563
multiple source files  3
compile failed   212
preprocessor error34
bad compiler arguments60
unsupported source language   15
autoconf compile/link611
unsupported compiler option 1426
no input file   1309
files in cache 30789
cache size   4.1 Gbytes
max cache size  10.0 Gbytes

This makes me really glad that I set a max cache size larger
than the default 1 GB,


For comparison, after I had completed several non-product
builds of OpenOffice, my cache statistics looked like ...

cache directory 
/media/2ced347d-3cdc-49f5-956d-099d36784957/terry/OOo_hacking/SRC_DIR_ccache
cache hit (direct) 0
cache hit (preprocessed)   15499
cache miss 14993
called for link 1192
multiple source files  9
compile failed91
preprocessor error24
unsupported source language  186
autoconf compile/link666
no input file450
files in cache 29986
cache size   1.5 Gbytes
max files 10
max cache size  10.0 Gbytes

I do not remember turning on cache compression back then,
but that could well explain the big difference in cache
size.


Cheers,
Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 11:40 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
 Hi Lubos,
 (snip)

 Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
 you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)


 Just a note about what I have observed, for anybody who
 happens to care.

Since we are sharing data point, here is ccache -s for the MacOSX tinderbox:

cache directory /Volumes/ccache_ramdisk
cache hit (direct)   5595178
cache hit (preprocessed)  217622
cache miss362720
called for link   297911
multiple source files   1281
compile failed 98681
preprocessor error 49165
couldn't find the compiler 5
bad compiler arguments 21278
unsupported source language 4445
autoconf compile/link 420383
unsupported compiler option   689280
no input file  89750
files in cache 59804
cache size   2.0 Gbytes
max cache size   2.3 Gbytes
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi *,

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com wrote:
 On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 11:40 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:

 Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
 you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)

 Just a note about what I have observed, for anybody who
 happens to care.


    cache directory                     /home/terry/.ccache
    cache hit (direct)                  6158
    cache hit (preprocessed)              37
    cache miss                         11986
 [...]
    files in cache                     30789
    cache size                           4.1 Gbytes
    max cache size                      10.0 Gbytes

 This makes me really glad that I set a max cache size larger
 than the default 1 GB,

So you showed some irrelevant numbers, at least for the current topic.
Your cache is filled with other stuff already, not with just the files
from one single build.
And of course ccache will happily use whatever size is available
before it starts to expire old files.

But yes, If you build with debug symbols, you need larger cache size.
The 500MB for a build was referring to product builds, without any
debugging options.

 For comparison, after I had completed several non-product
 builds of OpenOffice, my cache statistics looked like ...

    cache directory                     
 /media/2ced347d-3cdc-49f5-956d-099d36784957/terry/OOo_hacking/SRC_DIR_ccache
    cache hit (direct)                     0
    cache hit (preprocessed)           15499
    cache miss                         14993

That is a rather bad hit ratio - something between 5:1 and 10:1 when
building often would be what I expect. 1:1 is when you build versions
that did have lots of changes in between.
And no direct hits? Did you disable it?

Norbert's ratio is of course when you build multiple times a day, so
might not be that representative either :-)

But you see that the cache-size doesn't need to be big to get hits.
When you stay on one branch, then the files that didn't match won't
match in future, so no need to keep them around, they can be expired.
When you switch back and forth in history and between different
branches, you should consider using different cache-directories (when
you build the other branches seldomly compared to your main tree), or
use a bigger size (if the other branch gets build regularly, and thus
the files in the cache are touched and thus not considered candidates
for expiry).

    max files                         10

Any reason why you set a limit on the number of files?

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

actually the more interesting numbers are:

--disable-ccache
make clean
time make

ccache -C
--enable-ccache
make clean
time make

make clean
time make

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Terrence Enger]

On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 21:33 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
 Hi *,
 
 On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Terrence Enger ten...@iseries-guru.com 
 wrote:
  On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 11:40 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
 
  Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
  you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)
 
  Just a note about what I have observed, for anybody who
  happens to care.
 
 
 cache directory /home/terry/.ccache
 cache hit (direct)  6158
 cache hit (preprocessed)  37
 cache miss 11986
  [...]
 files in cache 30789
 cache size   4.1 Gbytes
 max cache size  10.0 Gbytes
 
  This makes me really glad that I set a max cache size larger
  than the default 1 GB,
 
 So you showed some irrelevant numbers, at least for the current topic.
 Your cache is filled with other stuff already, not with just the files
 from one single build.
 And of course ccache will happily use whatever size is available
 before it starts to expire old files.

Actually, my cache was empty when I started just after
midnight ...

cache directory /home/terry/.ccache
cache hit (direct) 0
cache hit (preprocessed)   0
cache miss 0
files in cache 0
cache size 0 Kbytes
max cache size   1.0 Gbytes

Then I increased the maximum size.

 
 But yes, If you build with debug symbols, you need larger cache size.
 The 500MB for a build was referring to product builds, without any
 debugging options.
 
  For comparison, after I had completed several non-product
  builds of OpenOffice, my cache statistics looked like ...
 
 cache directory 
  /media/2ced347d-3cdc-49f5-956d-099d36784957/terry/OOo_hacking/SRC_DIR_ccache
 cache hit (direct) 0
 cache hit (preprocessed)   15499
 cache miss 14993
 
 That is a rather bad hit ratio - something between 5:1 and 10:1 when
 building often would be what I expect. 1:1 is when you build versions
 that did have lots of changes in between.
 And no direct hits? Did you disable it?

This is from last year.  I suspect the numbers result from
two builds, the first giving almost all misses and second
giving almost all hits.

I dunno about direct hits.  Direct hits may be a feature
newer than the ccache I was running then.

 (snip)
 max files 10
 
 Any reason why you set a limit on the number of files?

No, I think ccache did that all on its own.  OTOH, the man
page says there is no default value for --max-files.  The
output from `script` does not contain the string
max-files.  Sigh.


Terry.


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Tor Lillqvist]

If one of us (cloph) strongly feels that we should use # comments in 
configure.in and not dnl comments (well, keywords), and most others (?) 
(including me) are indifferent, why don't just change them all in one go then?

I wonder if there is some cases where the dnl keyword can not just be changed 
to # without changing the semantics of the autoconf/shell code?

--tml


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Norbert, *,

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Christian Lohmaier
 lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:

 if it's already an alias for ccache, it won't be prefixed with an
 additional ccace
 [...]
 I'm not sure I'm following: are you talking of the case where someone,
 on MacOS, has set-up ccache to masquerade as the compiler ?

I was using your words..
I'm talking about having setup ccache using symlinks.

gcc → ccache
g++ → ccache
gcc-4.0.1 → ccache
[...]

And having those in a PATH that comes before actual compiler.

It just doesn't make much sense to do magic with CC (i.e check whether
it is ccache driven or not) and then later set CC to a completely
different compiler. This is the part that is/was MacOS specific. You
changed the order of the blocks, so thanks for that :-)

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Tor, *,

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Tor Lillqvist tlillqv...@novell.com wrote:
 If one of us (cloph) strongly feels that we should use # comments in 
 configure.in and not dnl comments (well, keywords), and most others (?) 
 (including me) are indifferent, why don't just change them all in one go then?

I don't feel /that/ strongly about it. But if configure.in is touched,
I indeed would prefer it to be changed in the touched part, and not
introduced for new stuff.

 I wonder if there is some cases where the dnl keyword can not just be changed 
 to # without changing the semantics of the autoconf/shell code?

The section headings are enough to have in the generated configure,
and those are safe to change to #.

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Lubos Lunak]

On Monday 08 of August 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 I've pushed
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378
ca38f59518b018fccca8f

 This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
 was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
 This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
 case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX

 I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for anybody. 
Ccache needs an explicit setup for LO anyway, so people who have already done 
their setup will need to adjust for this. People who only have ccache 
installed but haven't done anything will get slower builds, as the default 
ccache cache size is vastly unsufficient for LO builds, so ccache will only 
create cache contents that will be eventually thrown away without any use.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lu...@suse.cz
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi Lubos,

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
 On Monday 08 of August 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
 I've pushed
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378
ca38f59518b018fccca8f

 This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
 was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
 This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
 case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX

  I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for anybody.
 Ccache needs an explicit setup for LO anyway,

No, no specific setup necessary, using the symlinks or exporting
CC/CXX is standard way.

 so people who have already done
 their setup will need to adjust for this. People who only have ccache
 installed but haven't done anything will get slower builds, as the default
 ccache cache size is vastly unsufficient for LO builds,

Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)

 so ccache will only
 create cache contents that will be eventually thrown away without any use.

At least this is not the case.
But of course compiling LO with ccache might throw out your other
project's content, so I understand your point.
As I have ccache setup using the symlink approach on all my systems, I
don't care...

(but I just realized that --disable-ccache doesn't actually disable
ccache when using symlinks - you would need to set CCACHE_DISABLE in
this case)

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Lubos Lunak]

On Monday 08 of August 2011, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz wrote:
  On Monday 08 of August 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
  I've pushed
  http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707
 378 ca38f59518b018fccca8f
 
  This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
  was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
  This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
  case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX
 
   I disagree with this change, as it does not improve anything for
  anybody. Ccache needs an explicit setup for LO anyway,

 No, no specific setup necessary, using the symlinks or exporting
 CC/CXX is standard way.

 By setup I meant increasing the ccache size, although I didn't realize that 
LO build might fit if one builds without any debug info.

  so people who have already done
  their setup will need to adjust for this. People who only have ccache
  installed but haven't done anything will get slower builds, as the
  default ccache cache size is vastly unsufficient for LO builds,

 Not true either. Default ccache size is 1GB, and that is enough when
 you focus on one branch. (a build uses less than 500MB)

 This is not true if the build uses any kind of debug info, and I would find 
it a really nasty surprise that one would need to explicitly adjust ccache 
when enabling debug build. I think this feature is trying to be way too 
clever.

-- 
 Lubos Lunak
 l.lu...@suse.cz
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Tor Lillqvist]

 I think this feature is trying to be way too clever.

I think I agree with Lubos here. Better to let those who know what ccache is, 
and who think/know they will benefit from it, decide themselves whether to use 
it, and exactly how.

--tml


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've pushed
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378ca38f59518b018fccca8f

Note on the Mac-OSX case:
The previous check was not to completely disable ccache, but only to
check whether --ccache-skip can be used safely. Even with unsuitable
versions (like unpatched 2.4 or 3.0) you could use ccache, it was just
that objective-c(++) was not cached.

 This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
 was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
 This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
 case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX

The latter is not done for the Mac OSX case when gcc 4.0 is forced,
or am I overlooking something?

I personally would prefer if the heading-comments would use # and
not dnl - any reason why you're using dnl and thus remove any hints
on the structure of the checks from the generated configure?

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've pushed
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378ca38f59518b018fccca8f

 Note on the Mac-OSX case:
 The previous check was not to completely disable ccache, but only to
 check whether --ccache-skip can be used safely. Even with unsuitable
 versions (like unpatched 2.4 or 3.0) you could use ccache, it was just
 that objective-c(++) was not cached.

humm... I need to take a closer look... Is that what the USE_CCACHE was for ?


 This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
 was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
 This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
 case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX

 The latter is not done for the Mac OSX case when gcc 4.0 is forced,
 or am I overlooking something?
if you 'forced' gcc 4.0 via CC= then no there is no automatic ccache
if 4.0 is 'forced' because you did not specify CC and the gcc
picked-up is too recent, then yes ccache is used if allowed:

+ if test $_os = Darwin -a $with_macosx_sdk = 10.4 -a
$_gpp_majmin -ge 401 ; then
+ if test -z $save_CXX -a -x $GCC_HOME/bin/g++-4.0 ; then
+ if test -z $CCACHE ; then
+ export CXX=$GCC_HOME/bin/g++-4.0
+ else
+ export CXX=$CCACHE $GCC_HOME/bin/g++-4.0
+ fi



 I personally would prefer if the heading-comments would use # and
 not dnl - any reason why you're using dnl and thus remove any hints
 on the structure of the checks from the generated configure?

Just mimetic behavior... I have no preference either way

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Christian Lohmaier]

Hi *,

On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Christian Lohmaier
 lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've pushed
 http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=57cf026739a3d707378ca38f59518b018fccca8f

 Note on the Mac-OSX case:
 The previous check was not to completely disable ccache, but only to
 check whether --ccache-skip can be used safely. Even with unsuitable
 versions (like unpatched 2.4 or 3.0) you could use ccache, it was just
 that objective-c(++) was not cached.

 humm... I need to take a closer look... Is that what the USE_CCACHE was for ?

Yes, that also was the only part where this was evaluated.
Current versions of ccache do support the objective-c++ flags, so
there is no need to use --ccache-skip anymore.

The problem was ccache did not support objectve-c++ flags, and had a
argument-corruption bug when --ccache-skip was used. Hence the need
for the check for a patched version that identifies itself as version
2.4_OOo. Its fine to drop this one and also remove the use of
--ccache-skip in the mac-makefile.

 This try to automatically use ccache when present, unless CC= or CXX=
 was specified by the user or --disable-ccache was passed to autogen
 This also detect if CC or CXX is already an alias for ccache, in which
 case ccache is not prefixed to CC and/or CXX

 The latter is not done for the Mac OSX case when gcc 4.0 is forced,
 or am I overlooking something?
 if you 'forced' gcc 4.0 via CC= then no there is no automatic ccache
 if 4.0 is 'forced' because you did not specify CC and the gcc
 picked-up is too recent, then yes ccache is used if allowed:

That's not the point is it is

if it's already an alias for ccache, it won't be prefixed with an
additional ccace

And that's not the case.
CC is checked for ccache and possibly altered, then gcc version is
checked for mac and it just disregards everything and sets CC no
matter of the previous check.
Same for CXX.

the ccache handling should occur *after* modifying CC/CXX, at least
that would me more logical.

 I personally would prefer if the heading-comments would use # and
 not dnl - any reason why you're using dnl and thus remove any hints
 on the structure of the checks from the generated configure?

 Just mimetic behavior... I have no preference either way

OK, please  use my preference in future then :-)

ciao
Christian
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: [Libreoffice] ccache support

[Norbert Thiebaud]

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Christian Lohmaier
lohmaier+libreoff...@googlemail.com wrote:
 Hi *,

 That's not the point is it is

 if it's already an alias for ccache, it won't be prefixed with an
 additional ccace

 And that's not the case.
 CC is checked for ccache and possibly altered, then gcc version is
 checked for mac and it just disregards everything and sets CC no
 matter of the previous check.
 Same for CXX.

 the ccache handling should occur *after* modifying CC/CXX, at least
 that would me more logical.


I'm not sure I'm following: are you talking of the case where someone,
on MacOS, has set-up ccache to masquerade as the compiler ?

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice