[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D12899: cmake fixups: post-build python step dependency and lldb-server dependency for lldb on Linux

[Todd Fiala via lldb-commits]

tfiala added a comment.

In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248741, @ki.stfu wrote:

> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248657, @tberghammer wrote:
>
> > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248654, @ki.stfu wrote:
> >
> > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899#248648, @zturner wrote:
> > >
> > > > One possible solution is to make an lldb-all target.
> > >
> > >
> > > As I said, it would much better rather than changing lldb dependencies. But I'm still not sure, do we really need something like lldb-all? Why we can't use "ninja" (i.e. without arguments) for building a whole LLDB?
> >
> >
> > "ninja" without any argument builds everything including llvm, clang and a lot of related tools what increase the link time by a lot (assuming something changed in the llvm/clang repository since the last build).
>
>
> cmake/ninja build has no a big difference between "ninja" and "ninja lldb":
>
>  


That's a 12.8% increase in build-related jobs in 'ninja' vs. 'ninja lldb'.  And more linking, which tends to be relatively slow.  On 4-core MacBook Pros and VMs, that's a non-trivial difference.

> $ ninja -j1

>  [1/3214] Building CXX object lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C

>  ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user.

>  $ ninja -j1 lldb

>  [1/2848] Building CXX object lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/RandomNumberGenerator.cpp.o^C

>  ninja: build stopped: interrupted by user.

> 

>   So it doesn't matter what to do: ninja or ninja lldb.





http://reviews.llvm.org/D12899