On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-08-25, 4:49 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >On 8/25/14 1:15 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >>On Monday 2014-08-25 10:27 -0700, Bill McCloskey wrote: > >>>Even if a full no-op build took no time, partial builds are still > >>>useful. Often my workflow looks something like this: > >>> > >>>change files in directory D > >>>rebuild only D, get a list of errors to fix > >>>...iterate until no more errors > >>>try to rebuild a few related directories, fixing errors there > >>>then rebuild the entire tree, hopefully without errors > >> > >>A similar problem that's been bugging me lately is that if I use > >>"mach build binaries" and it hits a compiler error, if I go fix the > >>error and rerun "mach build binaries", I have no idea how long I > >>need to wait to see if I even fixed the error successfully, since > >>the rebuild builds things in a different order. The > >>mostly-deterministic order that the build system used to provide was > >>an advantage for that case. > > > >This is an unfortunate side-effect of how make works compounded with our > >use of make to achieve fast builds with |mach build binaries|. > > > >I don't see an easy way around the problem while still using make. I > >think we're on the right course of action, which is to invest in getting > >the tree to build with "not make." Unfortunately, build staffing hasn't > >been reliable in the past 6+ months, so our trajectory towards this goal > >isn't as fast as you may prefer. That being said, glandium has done > >great things in the past few weeks related to C++ compilation. We're > >closer than ever to being able to e.g. generate Ninja and Tup files for > >building binaries. > > So can we at least agree to keep ./mach build dir working until when we have > Ninja support? Since if we ever get to that point, most of the performance > problems with the build system would have been fixed anyway. :-)
Well, reading this thread, it doesn't seem mach build dir is broken for the use people make of it, which is to build in a single directory. What people want apparently, is more being able to build a single file or set of files, more than a directory and its subdirectories. And ninja is not going to change anything for people wanting to rebuild a few files when changing a header. In fact, it would likely make things harder for them. Mike _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
