Am 19.04.20 um 00:25 schrieb D'Arcy Cain: > On 2020-04-18 17:23, Matthias Andree wrote: >> Am 18.04.20 um 18:40 schrieb D'Arcy Cain: >>> On 2020-04-18 10:18, ajtiM via freebsd-ports wrote: >>>> BTW, I do not know why some apps need llvm60 still: >>> I really wish there was only one llvm. It's one of those things that >>> can take days to build. A minor upgrade can trigger multiple rebuilds. >>> In my case only llvm80 and llvm90 but still. >> In my experience, LLVM responds rather well to ccache installed. It can >> occasionally get slow, but if it's just about a single file, ccache >> helps massively. GCC benefits less (if at all) from ccache. > One of us may be misunderstanding the other. Compiling with llvm can be > slow but I was talking about the time it takes to build llvm itself. > That's indeed what I was referring to, sorry for not making that clear. Building LLVM compiles ~5000 files, most C++, which is slow, but for PORTREVISION bumps from LLVM17.0.0 to LLVM17.0.0_1 (I am making the version up) that often patch only one or a few files, you get some 4000+ hits in ccache if you've builg 17.0.0 before, and the build zooms through at high speed.
This does not happen for GCC per my observation. Compile-time wise, using LLVM/clang to compile foreign code, used to be faster too, with GCC often optimizing a tad better, but in the end for FreeBSD, I try to use whatever is the system default, unless that renders broken code (rawtherapee), then I set USE_GCC. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
