On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Ben Boeckel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 22:35:26 -0400, Mike Shal wrote: > > 500ms isn't too bad for a development loop, though it seems kinda long > for > > such a small project. What happens when the project is 10x or 100x as > big? > > Will it take 10x or 100x as long? And this is ignoring the time to > generate > > the ninja files, right? > > That isn't 500ms for each directory, it's 500ms / 45 for each (so ~11ms > each). With my recent performance patches to CMake it takes about 600ms > (used to be around 4-6 seconds) to generate the Ninja files (which only > really happens on file addition/removal, test addition/removal, and > direct CMake changes). The most common time to regenerate the files is > when the branch changes anyways. > Right, so if I had 450 directories instead of 45, it would be 5s? And if I added a single file somewhere, it'd be 6s+5s == 11s before it starts compiling the new file? I'm glad to hear you've improved the performance, I'm just pointing out that the "parse everything before doing anything" model is the wrong approach. Doubly so when you have this model twice - once for CMakefiles and once for ninja files. -Mike -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
