Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
At 6:28am -0400 Thu, 06 Oct 2011, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud: I'll give it a shot... Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the compiles are ccached... As an nth data point on the matter, I've been using ccache for awhile, and my builds take longer. Anecdotally (because I'm not focused on ccache specifically), I turned it off the other day, and my builds reduced from about 2 hours to 1h15m.* For reference, my ccache size is 8G, but only 1.8 G has been used. My hits at about 12,000 are about half of my misses. Cheers, Kevin * Both of those numbers are _very_ rough averages (created from memory of my "alias make='time make'" output), my builds compile in the background, at nice +19, on a puny dual-core 4G machine with a latent rotating HDD. The majority of my builds are "./g pull -r; make" used for testing. The less rough average is the "make distclean; ./g pull -r; make" workflow, which reduced a 3h30m compile to about 2h05m on the same hardware. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 07:36 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 06:30 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > >> 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > >> > 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > >> >> 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > >> >>> > >> >>> OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole > >> >>> build. > >> >> > >> >> I'll give it a shot... > >> > > >> > Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the > >> > compiles are ccached... > >> > >> As I suspected. changing to -O0 yield no significant difference on a > >> 'cache hot' tinderbox. > >> > >> But on Windows that may be worth it, since it does not use ccache. > > > > OK, I have meanwhile split the big .cxx file into 6 smaller ones and > > pushed. Largest file has around 750k, so hopefully it should not choke > > tinderboxes anymore. > > well they seems to go in a loop, most likely due to a bug in gbuild > that send the make in a endless look when one try to compile a file > that does not exist... > are you sure of commit > d05649c43b41c20a15677982e0942be8ac796753 ? Sorry, should be fixed now. (the .mk file, not the gbuild) Cheers Radek ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 06:30 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : >> > 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : >> >> 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : >> >>> >> >>> OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole >> >>> build. >> >> >> >> I'll give it a shot... >> > >> > Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the >> > compiles are ccached... >> >> As I suspected. changing to -O0 yield no significant difference on a >> 'cache hot' tinderbox. >> >> But on Windows that may be worth it, since it does not use ccache. > > OK, I have meanwhile split the big .cxx file into 6 smaller ones and > pushed. Largest file has around 750k, so hopefully it should not choke > tinderboxes anymore. well they seems to go in a loop, most likely due to a bug in gbuild that send the make in a endless look when one try to compile a file that does not exist... are you sure of commit d05649c43b41c20a15677982e0942be8ac796753 ? Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 06:30 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > > 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > >> 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > >>> > >>> OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole > >>> build. > >> > >> I'll give it a shot... > > > > Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the > > compiles are ccached... > > As I suspected. changing to -O0 yield no significant difference on a > 'cache hot' tinderbox. > > But on Windows that may be worth it, since it does not use ccache. OK, I have meanwhile split the big .cxx file into 6 smaller ones and pushed. Largest file has around 750k, so hopefully it should not choke tinderboxes anymore. Cheers Radek ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > 2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : >> 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : >>> >>> OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole >>> build. >> >> I'll give it a shot... > > Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the > compiles are ccached... As I suspected. changing to -O0 yield no significant difference on a 'cache hot' tinderbox. But on Windows that may be worth it, since it does not use ccache. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
2011/10/6 Norbert Thiebaud : > 2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : >> >> OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole >> build. > > I'll give it a shot... Not that I expect it to make a big difference... since most of the compiles are ccached... Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 04:13 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> > One thing I noticed. It might be useful to run tinderboxes without gcc >> > optimization (ie. with -O0). It makes huge difference in compile time - >> > more than 10 times faster on my system and could make the tinderbox >> > turnaround much faster. >> >> Yes, but the generated daily build would be less usefull that way and >> possibly hide optimisation-induced bug until the last minute. > > I thought the point of tinderboxes was to check quickly whether the tree > is buildable and report failure if not. I would consider differences > between whether an optimized or a non-optimized compilation would > complete to be compiler bug and ignore these. IMO, I would prefer > quicker turnarounds. Even more when the turnaround can be in order of 10 > hours. > > OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole > build. I'll give it a shot... Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 04:13 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > > One thing I noticed. It might be useful to run tinderboxes without gcc > > optimization (ie. with -O0). It makes huge difference in compile time - > > more than 10 times faster on my system and could make the tinderbox > > turnaround much faster. > > Yes, but the generated daily build would be less usefull that way and > possibly hide optimisation-induced bug until the last minute. I thought the point of tinderboxes was to check quickly whether the tree is buildable and report failure if not. I would consider differences between whether an optimized or a non-optimized compilation would complete to be compiler bug and ignore these. IMO, I would prefer quicker turnarounds. Even more when the turnaround can be in order of 10 hours. OTOH, we would need first to see how much would -O0 save for the whole build. Cheers Radek ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
2011/10/6 Radek Doulík : > Hi, > > I would also vote for not reverting stuff (at least not before we try > fix it first), when only some of the tinderboxes fail due low system > resources. my mac as 32 GB of memory and a dual quad core... the linux box as 8GB and a signle quad... 'low system ressource' is _not_ the problem here. most likely a gcc corner-case... > > I will try to split the offending source file to few smaller files, > similar to what we do for some non-generated CXX sources, and push > again. > > One thing I noticed. It might be useful to run tinderboxes without gcc > optimization (ie. with -O0). It makes huge difference in compile time - > more than 10 times faster on my system and could make the tinderbox > turnaround much faster. Yes, but the generated daily build would be less usefull that way and possibly hide optimisation-induced bug until the last minute. > > customshapepreset.cxx compiled with -O2 > real 4m22.910s > user 4m13.794s > sys 0m9.996s The mac version did not finished it died afeter 20+minutes The linux one I killed after the gcc process went up to 7+GB of ram used and the machine was becoming unresponsive (swapping like hell) > > customshapepreset.cxx compiled with -O0 > real 0m25.427s > user 0m25.242s > sys 0m1.035s > note : if for that/these source -O is not necessary or useful then you can tell the build to do a NOOPT compile. see sd/Library_sd.mk for an example. Norbert ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [Libreoffice] oox/source/drawingml/customshapepresets.cxx is just (Offensive Word Found In Message) too much for gcc
Hi, I would also vote for not reverting stuff (at least not before we try fix it first), when only some of the tinderboxes fail due low system resources. I will try to split the offending source file to few smaller files, similar to what we do for some non-generated CXX sources, and push again. One thing I noticed. It might be useful to run tinderboxes without gcc optimization (ie. with -O0). It makes huge difference in compile time - more than 10 times faster on my system and could make the tinderbox turnaround much faster. customshapepreset.cxx compiled with -O2 real4m22.910s user4m13.794s sys 0m9.996s customshapepreset.cxx compiled with -O0 real0m25.427s user0m25.242s sys 0m1.035s Cheers Radek On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 11:18 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote: > The only solutions I see are: > > 1) Either we should get some really really bad-ass Windows tinderbox, > *and* make it use ccache (i.e. investigate whether kendy's port of an > old ccache version really works correctly, or re-port a current ccache > to support MSVC). > > 2) Or, we should have our developers mainly work on the "difficult" > platforms, i.e. Windows, and to some extent MacOSX, so that they > notice themselves when code they are writing will cause problems on > these platforms. Only people mainly doing distro packaging would > continue to work on Linux. Obviously "we" (for some value of "us") > can't enforce that on volunteers, only bosses can on their paid > developers ;) > > 3) Or, we should jump to 4.0 directly, and support only > cross-compilation to Windows. (Yes, that means a lot of work needs to > be done to avoid too many regressions in the form of missing > features.) > > Obviously I am not really expecting you to take alternative 2 seriously. > > --tml -- Radek Doulík Novell, Inc. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
