Thiago, My feedback was completely based on feeling (not actual metrics) and yesterday I have realised by feeling was driven by a release only build.
When build for release and debug, the build time is incredibly longer. After looking at your metrics it does seem that build Qt was even quicker before. I feel bit stupid now! :D Best, Nuno > On 7 Sep 2021, at 18:50, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > 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. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering > > > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/interest
