Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 19:37 +, Jason Kenny wrote: > I think this is two different things > > Github vs bitbucket  > > Git vs hg > > I think a better argument is moving to git from hg. This is an easier > argument to make than trying to change two things.  > Whilst I agree with the current

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 13:32 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > See comments inline.. > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Russel Winder > wrote: > […] > > But no-one else in SCons-land seems interested in these things that come > > as > > standard in CMake and Meson. Thus small

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

---Original Message- > From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Gaurav > Juvekar > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 1:54 PM > To: scons-dev@scons.org > Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations > > On 2017-07-27 21:27, Bill Deegan wrot

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Gaurav Juvekar wrote: > On 2017-07-27 21:27, Bill Deegan wrote: > > > Post 3.0 - Migrate to GitHub > > Do you have any major challenges that could affect this right now? > Migrating to GitHub might bring in more contributors, since hg is

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

See comments inline.. On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 08:57 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > > Russel, > > > > You're forgetting (I think) that SCons does implement (some) of > > AutoConf/AutoMake's functionality. Could it be

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

age- From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Russel Winder Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 12:39 PM To: SCons developer list <scons-dev@scons.org> Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 08:57 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > Ru

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

or utter maintainer nightmares or updating it or understanding it. Jason From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Bill Deegan Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:57 AM To: SCons developer list <scons-dev@scons.org> Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations Russel, You'r

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

Of Gaurav Juvekar Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 1:54 PM To: scons-dev@scons.org Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations On 2017-07-27 21:27, Bill Deegan wrote: > Post 3.0 - Migrate to GitHub Do you have any major challenges that could affect this right now? Migrating to GitHub mi

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On 2017-07-27 21:27, Bill Deegan wrote: > Post 3.0 - Migrate to GitHub Do you have any major challenges that could affect this right now? Migrating to GitHub might bring in more contributors, since hg is a significant learning curve to newcomers. Does this involve migrating the bug tracker to

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Thu, 2017-07-27 at 08:57 -0700, Bill Deegan wrote: > Russel, > > You're forgetting (I think) that SCons does implement (some) of > AutoConf/AutoMake's functionality.  Could it be better/more complete? Of > course. Is it usable (and used)? very much so. From what I can see the end user has to

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

Russel, You're forgetting (I think) that SCons does implement (some) of AutoConf/AutoMake's functionality. Could it be better/more complete? Of course. Is it usable (and used)? very much so. Here's how I see the next two releases: 3.0 - PY2/3 compat, VS 2017, some minor performance

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 20:07 +, Jason Kenny wrote: > > > […] > Scons, make, ninja, msbuild are items to compare. The idea of comparing > CMake, Meson or autotools to SCons in incorrect. There is a big difference > in a "generator" and a build system and a build manager (ie stuff like >

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

nal Message- From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Dirk Bächle Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 12:53 PM To: scons-dev@scons.org Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations Hi there, On 21.07.2017 17:39, Andrew C. Morrow wrote: > > Hi scons-dev - > >

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

Hi there, On 21.07.2017 17:39, Andrew C. Morrow wrote: Hi scons-dev - The following is a revised draft of an email that I had originally intended to send as a follow up to https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/2017-June/006018.html. Instead, Bill Deegan and I took some time to

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Dirk Bächle wrote: > > On 24.07.2017 23:29, Bill Deegan wrote: > >> As Jason said, if you run a profile on a reasonable sized build the >> MD5'ing doesn't really show much % of runtime. >> >> > Unless your project is called "MongoDB". ;) >

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

On 24.07.2017 23:29, Bill Deegan wrote: As Jason said, if you run a profile on a reasonable sized build the MD5'ing doesn't really show much % of runtime. Unless your project is called "MongoDB". ;) Dirk ___ Scons-dev mailing list

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

ons.org] * On Behalf Of *Andrew > Featherstone > *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2017 2:38 PM > *To:* SCons developer list <scons-dev@scons.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations > > > > Could SCons use a faster hashing algorithm if available in

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

way safely. > > > > Jason > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Bill Deegan <b...@baddogconsulting.com> > *Sent: *Monday, July 24, 2017 10:18 AM > *To: *SCons developer lis

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10 From: Bill Deegan<mailto:b...@baddogconsulting.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 10:18 AM To: SCons developer list<mailto:scons-dev@scons.org> Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations Jason, A somewhat common use

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

s possible and pass state to the main thread about node >>> state >>>which has the main data structure will work much better. This should >>> have a >>>positive effect on builder based on Python code as they can build >>>independently. In all case

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

stem. The current >>logic for Visual studio, for example, tries to make a makefile project to >>run SCons. The users really want to make a MSBuild project. We should do >>that. Likewise, we should be better at working with other build system >>project

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

ems like these make it easy to do so. > > > > When I was at Intel some of the people helping me made a profiler for > Python in Intel VTune. I believe they are still working on that. It was > useful at making fixes that were not obvious in Parts to get speed > improvements. Since SCons

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

it as it will give you some incite the default tools will not provide as well. Jason From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On Behalf Of Andrew C. Morrow Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 10:40 AM To: SCons developer list <scons-dev@scons.org> Subject: [Scons-dev] SCons perfo

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

Hi all, Is it possible to set up the c++ benchmark on buildbot (or something else) and run it with cProfile automatically (including for different versions - py2/3 * ubuntu, windows)? That would give accurate results on the same system (I assume buildbot will run in a fixed environment). --

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

At least in pypy a json sconsign would be quite fast compared to pickle. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017, 11:39 Andrew C. Morrow wrote: > > Hi scons-dev - > > The following is a revised draft of an email that I had originally > intended to send as a follow up to >

[Scons-dev] SCons performance investigations

Hi scons-dev - The following is a revised draft of an email that I had originally intended to send as a follow up to https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/2017-June/006018.html. Instead, Bill Deegan and I took some time to expand on my first draft and add some ideas about how to