[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Compilation speed

From: Ergus
Subject: Re: Compilation speed
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 14:37:52 +0200

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:43:05AM +0200, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 11:25:37AM +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> On 8/6/20 8:20 AM, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>> And then ./configure takes 19 seconds, and that's fully single-threaded,
>> I believe?  And...  I'm guessing there's no way to get that to be
>> multi-threaded?


The "speed" of autoconf is probably the reason why its adoption rate is
falling.  I remember insisting on using autoconf for many years, just
because.  Until I figured out CMake 3.x.  I will never write an autoconf
script again, never.

I used to consider CMake as "just another build system, why not". Until
I saw its cross-compilation story. Since then, I appreciate autoconf
even more.

I do cross compilation in CMake almost daily and I actually have very
few complains. It is extremely simple and it has "A syntax to rule them
all". And other "extras" like cpack, ctest, ccmake, the finders (with
the same syntax) or the CMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS option to generato
compilation database for clang.

The only real issue for me in CMake is that there is not a log where I
can see quickly the configuration command I used on yesterday.

OTOH, in emacs CMake is not an option because gnulib does not give any
support for it (developers policy). Which in my opinion is bad for
gnulib because CMake use is growing.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]