aganea added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52193#1238944, @zturner wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52193#1238923, @aganea wrote: > > > The goal of this change is frictionless compilation into VS2017 when using > > `clang-cl` as a compiler. We've realized that compiling Clang+LLD with > > Clang generates a faster executable that with MSVC (even latest one). > > I currently can't see a good way of generating the Visual Studio solution > > with CMake, while using Ninja+clang-cl for compilation. They are two > > orthogonal configurations. Any suggestions? > > > I don't think this is necessary. I think your updated Matrix is pretty good. > > I'm surprised to see that Ninja + Clang is slower than Ninja + MSVC. Are you > using lld here? Yes, all the ‘Clang’ rows use both clang-cl and lld-link. Like stated above, I think this is caused by a lot more processes (clang-cl.exe) being invoked. In contrast, cl.exe does not invoke a child process. There are about 3200 files to compiles, which makes 6400 calls to clang-cl. At about ~60ms lead time per process, that adds up to an extra ~3min wall clock time. It is the simplest explanation I could find. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52193 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits