Hi Bill,
Here are some timing, I made for ITK to compare ninja vs make (made
last month). See results below
The difference is not much, especially when you realized that none of
the data have been downloaded, and I am not sure that at the end we
get the same binary tree...
Encouraging
On 10/6/2011 12:07 PM, Arnaud Gelas wrote:
Hi Bill,
Here are some timing, I made for ITK to compare ninja vs make (made last
month). See results below
The difference is not much, especially when you realized that none of
the data have been downloaded, and I am not sure that at the end we get
OK, so I think this project is way too small for this test. There is
some fixed overhead in the process here, and we are seeing it. We are
talking about .5 seconds difference to check a whole build system. If
you want to do tests like this, you need a much bigger project. I am
sure that
On 06.10.2011 21:14, Peter Kümmel wrote:
OK, so I think this project is way too small for this test. There is
some fixed overhead in the process here, and we are seeing it. We are
talking about .5 seconds difference to check a whole build system. If
you want to do tests like this, you need a
And here some numbers to compare it with Qt's qmake.
I've used this project: http://kst-plot.kde.org/
which supports qmake and cmake.
Running make/ninja on a fresh compiled project
with warm caches (in seconds):
qmake cmake Ninja
Makefiles makefiles
-j10.5-0.8
On Wednesday 05 October 2011, Peter Kümmel wrote:
And here some numbers to compare it with Qt's qmake.
I've used this project: http://kst-plot.kde.org/
which supports qmake and cmake.
Running make/ninja on a fresh compiled project
with warm caches (in seconds):
qmake cmake
On 05.10.2011 20:38, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
On Wednesday 05 October 2011, Peter Kümmel wrote:
And here some numbers to compare it with Qt's qmake.
I've used this project: http://kst-plot.kde.org/
which supports qmake and cmake.
Running make/ninja on a fresh compiled project
with warm caches
On 05.10.2011 21:45, Bill Hoffman wrote:
I just tried this on a machine here.
svn co svn://anonsvn.kde.org/home/kde/branches/work/kst/portto4/kst
CMake build:
make -j8
real3m19.131s
user16m31.866s
sys 3m25.289s
Qmake build:
real2m55.761s
user15m15.585s
sys 1m58.203s
On 30.09.2011 19:16, Eric Noulard wrote:
2011/9/30 Alexander Neundorfa.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
Summary:
builddryrebuild
ninja 1m15.8 0m0.10m07.3
make1m19.4 0m1.40m07.9
auto3m19.9 0m2.10m13.0
So only the dry run shows a huge speedup (10-20 times
On Friday 30 September 2011, Peter Kuemmel wrote:
Tested cmake/ninja with Blender's cmake files, works well, and fast!
Single file rebuild is 0.97 sec, same on makefiles was 3.7sec.
I also have some numbers:
Building LyX (lyx.org, 676 files):
LyX has
2011/9/30 Alexander Neundorf a.neundorf-w...@gmx.net:
Summary:
build dry rebuild
ninja 1m15.8 0m0.1 0m07.3
make 1m19.4 0m1.4 0m07.9
auto 3m19.9 0m2.1 0m13.0
So only the dry run shows a huge speedup (10-20 times faster)
Not to question your numbers,
Tested cmake/ninja with Blender's cmake files, works well, and fast!
Single file rebuild is 0.97 sec, same on makefiles was 3.7sec.
I also have some numbers:
Building LyX (lyx.org, 676 files):
LyX has autotools and cmake as build system.
* cmake generated
On 9/14/2011 5:37 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
Looks like that's working. Running ninja again, I'm seeing another issue:
BRL-CAD uses dependency assignment to make sure our build time delta
calculator is the last target to be built (and hence actually times the
build). With ninja, it doesn't seem
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:00:05PM -0400, cmake-requ...@cmake.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:37:20 -0400
From: Clifford Yapp cliffy...@gmail.com
Looks like that's working. Running ninja again, I'm seeing another issue:
BRL-CAD uses dependency assignment to make sure our build
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:00:05PM -0400, cmake-requ...@cmake.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:37:20 -0400
From: Clifford Yapp cliffy...@gmail.com
Looks like that's working. Running ninja again, I'm seeing another
Looks like that's working. Running ninja again, I'm seeing another issue:
BRL-CAD uses dependency assignment to make sure our build time delta
calculator is the last target to be built (and hence actually times the
build). With ninja, it doesn't seem to be respecting this, but instead
tries to
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.ukwrote:
It looks like various custom commands aren't running (some tcl related
stuff, docbook documentation generation) - are custom commands currently
supported?
Yes, custom commands and targets are supported. There
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 08:40:32AM -0400, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.ukwrote:
It looks like various custom commands aren't running (some tcl related
stuff, docbook documentation generation) - are custom commands currently
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:42:13AM -0400, Bill Hoffman wrote:
This is very cool work Peter. How well is this generator doing with the
CMake tests?
These are the current test results:
89% tests passed, 22 tests failed out of 203
Label Time Summary:
Label1= 0.03 sec
Label2= 0.03
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 02:55:00PM +, Malfettone, Kris wrote:
Peter,
I am very interested in the ninja generator and gave it a try for one of my
very large projects. Unfortunately, I have approximately 100 targets all
with the same output name(simple) but in CMake I give them all unique
On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:52:23AM -0400, Clifford Yapp wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk wrote:
Anyone who is interested in trying the Ninja generator with
their own projects is welcome to clone my repository at:
Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 19:54:46 schrieb Peter Collingbourne:
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:04:42PM -0400, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin
wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk
Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Subject: Proposal:
This is very cool work Peter. How well is this generator doing with the
CMake tests? Is there a nija for windows? I would be interested in
testing that.
-Bill
___
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
.
-Kris
-Original Message-
From: cmake-boun...@cmake.org [mailto:cmake-boun...@cmake.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Collingbourne
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin
Cc: CMake ML
Subject: Re: [CMake] FYI - From Ninja-build mailing list - Fwd: Proposal
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk wrote:
Anyone who is interested in trying the Ninja generator with
their own projects is welcome to clone my repository at:
https://github.com/pcc/CMake/tree/ninja-generator
and to report any issues encountered. Note that
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:04:42PM -0400, Jean-Christophe Fillion-Robin wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk
Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Subject: Proposal: restat rules
To: ninja-bu...@googlegroups.com
FWIW, the Ninja generator I have
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk wrote:
I am planning to submit the Ninja generator as a patch to CMake
upstream once it has been put through more exhaustive testing and
certain known issues have been resolved (my post to ninja-build being
one of them).
Tested cmake/ninja with Blender's cmake files, works well, and fast!
Single file rebuild is 0.97 sec, same on makefiles was 3.7sec.
btw, we do something similar to LLVM with generating source, only
updating if it changes, however only for C files not headers, ninja
handles this ok for my quick
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Collingbourne pe...@pcc.me.uk
Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:17 PM
Subject: Proposal: restat rules
To: ninja-bu...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
In this email I'll try to explain one of the oddities of make (which
some CMake-based build systems rely on),
29 matches
Mail list logo
