From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Test CMake build |
Date: | 2016-02-12 15:09:49 |
Message-ID: | 15077.1455289789@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> Cmake 2 times faster, that is good, but I don't understand why. Which
>> optimization level does cmake buld use by default? Which compiler does it
>> take? It's not obvious, because cmake build hides actual compiler command
>> line.
> Hm, I don't think having the compile/link lines be hidden up is
> acceptable. Many times we need to debug some compile problem, and the
> output is mandatory.
As long as it's *possible* to expose the commands, I see nothing wrong
with hiding them by default. I personally almost always use "make -s"
these days, and would not mind if that became the default behavior.
But there had better be a switch to do the other thing.
The other make switch I use all the time is -jN (with varying values of N
depending on what machine I'm on). If cmake can't provide an equivalent
feature, that would be a large minus, because if you have a decent number
of cores -j makes a huge difference in build time.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-02-12 15:11:39 | Re: Test CMake build |
Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2016-02-12 15:05:22 | Re: Test CMake build |