Actually, this is a policy I have never been a big fan of. In my experience
just forward declaring as much as possible in the headers and only including in
compilations units tend to have decent improvements in complication time,
particularly files like `mesos.cpp` or `slave.cpp` which indirectl
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Jeff Coffler
wrote:
> 3. Maintaining the correct includes is nice, but not at the cost of compiler
> speed.
Personally, I would invert these statements -- but until we know the
cost of the redundant includes, probably not worth debating further.
> 4. I totally d
numbers under my belt. From that, we can make intelligent
decisions about where to go.
/Jeff
-Original Message-----
From: Andy Schwartzmeyer [mailto:andsc...@microsoft.com.INVALID]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:31 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
Hi,
I
with prototyping this?
Thanks,
-- Andy
From: Benjamin Bannier
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 12:26 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
Hi,
> I wonder if we should instead use headers like:
>
> <- mesos_commo
Hi,
> I wonder if we should instead use headers like:
>
> <- mesos_common.h ->
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> <- xyz.cpp, which needs headers "b" and "d" ->
> #include "mesos_common.h>
>
> #include
> #include
>
> That way, the fact that "xyz.cpp" logically depends on (but not
> or
rformance enhancement as well.
> >
> > I'm working on getting some hard numbers for a subset of Mesos. Once we
> have some hard comparisons with compiler performance (with and without
> PCH), we can address this much more practically.
> >
> > /Jeff
> >
> >
hard numbers for a subset of Mesos. Once we have
> some hard comparisons with compiler performance (with and without PCH), we
> can address this much more practically.
>
> /Jeff
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:neil.con...@gmail.com]
> Sen
, since it's only read once, the time savings is not diminished at
all.
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Alex Clemmer [mailto:clemmer.alexan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:24 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
Yes, that is right, PCHs
il.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:13 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jeff Coffler
wrote:
> For efficiency purposes, if a header file is included by 50% or more of the
> source files, it should be included in the p
Yes, that is right, PCHs would probably introduce some additional
dependencies for some object files, and if those PCHs become bloated
over time, then you can expect this to be expressed as diminishing time
savings.
This does imply that maintaining PCHs will require at least some work.
__
Trans
le, sometimes the implementation MUST be in header
files.
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Joris Van Remoortere [mailto:jo...@mesosphere.io]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:46 AM
To: dev@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
However, the non-header-only
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jeff Coffler
wrote:
> For efficiency purposes, if a header file is included by 50% or more of the
> source files, it should be included in the precompiled header. If a header is
> included in fewer than 50% of the source files, then it can be separately
> inclu
der
files.
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Joris Van Remoortere [mailto:jo...@mesosphere.io]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:46 AM
To: dev@mesos.apache.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
>
> However, the non-header-only work won't do anything in a "c
st enough to take the sting out
> of significant stout changes, but changing stout will still help the
> incremental build cases regardless.
>
> Hope that clarifies,
>
> /Jeff
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Conway [mailto:neil.con...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tues
ging stout will still help the incremental build cases
regardless.
Hope that clarifies,
/Jeff
-Original Message-
From: Neil Conway [mailto:neil.con...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:45 AM
To: dev
Subject: Re: Proposal for Mesos Build Improvements
I'm curious to hea
I'm curious to hear more about how using PCH compares with making
stout a non-header-only library. Is PCH easier to implement, or is it
expected to offer a more dramatic improvement in compile times? Would
making both changes eventually make sense?
Neil
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Jeff Coff
Just to add a bit of context, the history of the issue of build time is
tracked in MESOS-1582[1], and most recently[2].
Speaking personally, I'm excited about _any_ progress in this area,
because (1) the Windows build times are completely unbearable, and (2)
because getting the build times down b
Proposal For Build Improvements
The Mesos build process is in dire need of some build infrastructure
improvements. These improvements will improve speed and ease of work in
particular components, and dramatically improve overall build time, especially
in the Windows environment, but likely in t
18 matches
Mail list logo
