Re: WIP: About CMake v2

Hi,

On 2017-02-08 16:52:19 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> For my own purposes, the only thing that I find seriously annoying about
> the status quo is the amount of time required to run "configure". For
> me, that step is usually comparable to or even more than the time to
> do the build proper, because (a) ccache and (b) multiple CPUs.
> configure isn't parallelizable, and there's probably nothing that
> can be done about that.

I use autoconf caching feature to make that a bit less painful (plus
some scripting about when to scrap the cache file...). I find that
seriously annoying too.

> If CMake offers a substantial improvement
> in configuration time then that would be attractive. Otherwise I'd
> just as soon see us put the effort into making the MSVC scripts more
> robust and able to pull more data from the makefiles.

Some of the build-tooling in cmake is quite nice, I have to admit. I've
e.g. grown to like using ninja instead of make to build the resulting
files. Primarily in projects that take longer than pg to compile - a
clean build in llvm with ninja takes like 0.1 seconds.

Being more able to rely on things working on windows when doing them on
linux does seem like an advantage to me - fiddlin with Mkvcbuild.pm is
quite annoying.

- Andres