07.09.2021, 20:53, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 02:52:49 PDT Tor Arne Vestbø wrote: >> Good to hear! >> >> Part of it comes from CMake generating ninja files instead of Makefiles. > > Our qmake-generated Makefiles weren't that slow. Nothing compared to Automake, > at least. > > Qt 5 qtbase/src build: > Build succeeded, took 3:01.027s (total run time 3:01.027s), 2388.2% CPU usage > > Qt 6 equivalent with Ninja: > Build succeeded, took 222.01s (2385% CPU usage) > > 3:01.027 = 181.027s (sorry, different wrapper, so they print time differently) > > Same compiler, same otherwise-idle machine, icecc disabled. The configuration > on both builds is meant to be the same, full build.
If generated makefiles were non-recursive, it would be even faster. Ninja rocks for incremental build times and has some convenience features for generators, but it's not a magic pill. -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
