On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 21:17, Иван Комиссаров wrote:
>
> Yeah, blog post would be nice. I'd wait for the product graph feature though
> so we could compare cmake buildgraph and Qbs build graphs as well.
Writing such an article would require a bit more work in term of
collecting and analysing
Yeah, blog post would be nice. I'd wait for the product graph feature though so
we could compare cmake buildgraph and Qbs build graphs as well.
Иван Комиссаров
> 23 июля 2019 г., в 4:49, Vincent Hui написал(а):
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> Thank you for your benchmark.
>
> Would you mind writing a
Hi Chris,
Thank you for your benchmark.
Would you mind writing a blog post to record your benchmark in order to
promote Qbs?
By the way, I think we need to come up with good ideas for promoting Qbs.
Vincent
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 07:31, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:10, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:00:07AM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > At the 20 jobs mark, cmake start to stagnate, whereas qbs still make
> > use of parallelism, at the 30 jobs mark, cmake completely stopped
> > reducing overall
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:00:07AM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> At the 20 jobs mark, cmake start to stagnate, whereas qbs still make
> use of parallelism, at the 30 jobs mark, cmake completely stopped
> reducing overall build time, whereas qbs start to stagnate. At the 40
> jobs mark, both
; beacuse of that translation layer.
Michael
__
Od: "Christian Gagneraud"
Komu: "qbs"
Datum: 22.07.2019 01:00
Předmět: Re: [Qbs] Qbs (way) faster than cmake (or benchmark issue)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:29, Christ
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:29, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I finally found time to start my qbs vs cmake build perf.
>
> What i found is that qbs beats cmake 'big time' on my build machine
> and i was actually surprised, so surprised that i'm trying to find
> where is the mistake.
Hi,
time qbs -f ../qtcreator.qbs -j $jobs profile:qt-5-12-2
project.withAutotests:false
vs
cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_DEBUG="-O0 -g" -G Ninja ..
time ninja -j $jobs
Is QBS's default profile is debug too? Because for CMake you set
-DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug.
Maybe the use
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 18:29, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> The compiler flags are not the same, but not so far off:
> Qbs: -g -O0 -Wall -Wextra -m64 -pipe -fexceptions -fvisibility=hidden
> -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fPIC
> CMake: -g -O0 -std=c++14 -fvisibility=hidden
>
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:29:35 +1200
Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> I finally found time to start my qbs vs cmake build perf.
>
> What i found is that qbs beats cmake 'big time' on my build machine
> and i was actually surprised, so surprised that i'm trying to find
> where is the mistake.
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, 19:00 Oswald Buddenhagen,
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:29:35PM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > $ time qbs -f ../qtcreator.qbs profile:qt-5-12-2
> > user96m51.927s
> > sys 19m52.059s
> >
> > $ time ninja
> > user70m58.028s
> > sys 23m9.238s
> >
>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 06:29:35PM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> $ time qbs -f ../qtcreator.qbs profile:qt-5-12-2
> user96m51.927s
> sys 19m52.059s
>
> $ time ninja
> user70m58.028s
> sys 23m9.238s
>
these system time figures appear *wy* too high to me. something
funny
12 matches
Mail list logo
