On Sep 22, 2013, at 18:20, Mark Hammond <mhamm...@skippinet.com.au> wrote:
> On 23/09/2013 11:04 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> On Sep 22, 2013, at 16:35, Anthony Jones <ajo...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> On 21/09/13 17:58, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >>>> I don't think that's necessarily true on Windows. If we can find a way to >>>> generate Visual Studio projects and use those to build, or do most of the >>>> build, we can probably go a lot faster than using cl command-line >>>> invocations compiling one file per invocation. >>> >>> It would be nice to see multiple files per cl invocation. That would >>> likely be a significant win for Windows. The performance improvements >>> are good for Linux but Windows build performance still lags many minutes >>> behind the Linux. >> >> Not sure what you mean here. > > In my experience, a clobber build on Windows does not fully utilize the CPU - > for most of the build, many cores are simply not being used. It might > technically be "CPU bound", but it's certainly not "CPU efficient". > > I suspect Roc was suggesting there might still be opportunities to increase > the parallelism of the build that would offer significant wins on Windows. The patches announced in the first post on this thread offer such a solution. They work with GNU make and pymake and can saturate a 64+ core machine. > > [I also see a clobber build spend > 5 minutes in various configure runs, > which frustrates me every time I see it - so I minimize the shell ;] We don't have much love for configure either. However, it's only contributing a few extra minutes to Windows builds compared with 15+ minutes that pymake and make traversal is. I hope you understand why fixing configure isn't at the top of the priority list at the moment. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
