On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
I shouldn't say that Rust has no problems with build times--it could always
be faster, and in particular the memory representations are inefficient,
particularly around ASTs--but when you actually run with `-Z
On 11/29/2013 03:01 AM, Léo Testard wrote:
Hello,
I think everyone here will agree to say that compilation times in Rust
are problematic. Recently, there was an argument on IRC about reducing
compilation times by reducing the use of GC and failures. Although I
agree it's good to reduce
Maybe this should be done upstream in LLVM, actually. Seems like work that
would be applicable to e.g. clang with LTO as well.
Tim Chevalier catamorph...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com
wrote:
I shouldn't say that Rust has no problems with
Hello,
I think everyone here will agree to say that compilation times in Rust are
problematic. Recently, there was an argument on IRC about reducing
compilation times by reducing the use of GC and failures. Although I agree
it's good to reduce Rustc's overhead, I think there are more important
+1 for this issue. I think that compilation time is really important if
we want Rust to be used as production language.
For example, I think that if we can reduce significantly the Rust
compiler's compilation time, it could allow more developers to
contribute to the Rust language (as they won't
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Guillaume HERVIER
eperso.m...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for this issue. I think that compilation time is really important if we
want Rust to be used as production language.
For example, I think that if we can reduce significantly the Rust compiler's
compilation
On 11/29/13 3:01 AM, Léo Testard wrote:
Hello,
I think everyone here will agree to say that compilation times in Rust
are problematic.
I disagree. Rust doesn't compile that much slower than other languages
at this point.
For example, I think that if we can reduce significantly the Rust
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
I disagree. Rust doesn't compile that much slower than other languages at
this point.
If by other languages you mean C++, C++ compile times are a huge
turnoff for me, especially when I know that the work that
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
I disagree. Rust doesn't compile that much slower than other languages at
this point.
If by other languages you mean C++, C++ compile times are a huge
On 11/29/13 3:01 AM, Léo Testard wrote:
Although I
agree it's good to reduce Rustc's overhead, I think there are more
important problems. The total duration of a build matters only because
you have to recompile the whole crate on each modification. In C++, the
duration of the complete build of a
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
A minimal program definitely doesn't compile more slowly than `clang`:
Well, I said it was mostly unrelated. :)
Importing the std crate is responsible for the overhead, but if the C
program can bring in basic library
On 11/29/13 10:26 AM, comex wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote:
A minimal program definitely doesn't compile more slowly than `clang`:
Well, I said it was mostly unrelated. :)
Importing the std crate is responsible for the overhead, but if the C
On 11/29/13 10:29 AM, György Andrasek wrote:
On 11/29/2013 06:09 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
compilation times. This thread [1] reports build time increases of
6x-15x!
No, he reported build time *improvements* of 6x-15x. Quoting later:
Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Too early in the
Why not lz4? It's faster than snappy.
On Nov 29, 2013 11:29 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 11/29/13 10:26 AM, comex wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com
wrote:
A minimal program definitely doesn't compile more slowly than `clang`:
I experimented with LZ4. https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/6954. It
isn't worth it, IMO.
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Carter Charbonneau zcart...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not lz4? It's faster than snappy.
On Nov 29, 2013 11:29 AM, Patrick Walton pcwal...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 11/29/13
15 matches
Mail list logo
