On Friday 05 of April 2013, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:16:06AM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > > I enabled pch because it was claimed to speed up things... I have not > > benchmark that claim. > > I would benchmark that, at least in the old days the results of PCH where > really mixed: > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Build_Environment_Effort/Performance > > and only reliably gave an advantage on incremental builds. OTOH, generating > the PCH for a library was a singlethreaded bottleneck in the old build > system and isnt anymore in gbuild, when doing a toplevel make, so this > might be mitigated. > > Anyway, worth a benchmark IMHO.
make Library_sw PCH: 7:01 non-PCH: 20:31 That's on Win86-6, MSVC2010, hot caches. The difference is of course smaller for modules lower in the stack, sw must use tons of includes. Full rebuild of master on Win86-6 is now something like 3 hours, without PCH it'd be at least 4 (I don't remember anymore and it'd take a while to measure). I have not tried with GCC, and with Clang it's actually not worth it at all. -- Lubos Lunak l.lu...@suse.cz _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice