[llvm-dev] CMake dependencies and building LLVM

Fri Jul 7 17:19:41 PDT 2017

For what it's worth:

- I'm usually seeing similar behavior even in shorter timeframes like updating after half a day
- From all I could tell the buildsystem was doing the right thing. There's just a lot of headers in Support and ADT that are included pretty much everywhere and people change them (legitimately).

Sure you may find the occasional instance where doing some class XXX; forward declaration instead of #include "XXX.h" would improve dependencies. But overall LLVM code is already amazingly clean in this regard so I don't see a lot of room for improvement there either.

- If you haven't seen it look at Tillmanns excellent blogpost about all the ways to optimize an LLVM build: https://blogs.s-osg.org/an-introduction-to-accelerating-your-build-with-clang/ <https://blogs.s-osg.org/an-introduction-to-accelerating-your-build-with-clang/>
- The biggest savings for me personally are disabling clang builds and restricting myself to the targets I am developing for
- Either way it's never fast and I end up drinking way too much coffee because it's so easy to go down the hall to grab another one while the build is running...

- Matthias

> On Jul 7, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I have seen TableGen creating tempoaries and doing the right thing. Keep in mind that the stated numbers are final numbers (i.e. When ninja is done). I'll try with some single changesets to try to narrow down what it is that causes a lot of recompilation. 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:42 PM Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <mailto:daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>> wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2017, at 17:12, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm /guessing/ this is probably pretty normal - but likely the best solution would be to get down to granularity of 1 commit in each of those ranges, to see if it's really justified that the change causes so much recompilation (ie: do all the things that got compiled really depend on the modified file)
>> 
>> Some of this might be tablegen recompiling - but I /think/ that ninja has some support/seems to do the right thing when the resulting tablegen binary isn't different from previously (or maybe when it doesn't generate different output - this would be better) & doesn't cause everything to rebuild (you'll notice Ninja sometimes starts with a very high estimate (1000+) of targets to rebuild, but the estimate is adjusted down to only a couple of hundred in many cases probably due to this.
> 
> I can confirm that tablegen-erated files do the right thing and that it's based on the output of tablegen. Our cmake scripts do it by having llvm-tblgen write to a temporary file and then use 'cmake -E copy_if_different' to update the real one when necessary. Once ninja has run the copy_if_different command it re-checks the dependencies and culls the ones it doesn't need.
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 6:47 AM Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I have felt for quite some time that during my regular LLVM workflow, CMake recompiles a lot of files after I update to the latest ToT (which I do more than once per week). Of course, this wasn't really based on any real data, just felt like every time I update (even if it's a day or two later), we end up recompiling everything. For a while I assumed that patches touch a few headers that are used all over the place or something like that, but this was happening with what seems like unexpected frequency.
>> 
>> So what I've done is do a few update/rebuild cycles for revisions that are 200 apart, then 100, then 50, then 25. And it seems that quite commonly, we recompile more than 50% of the source with just a few landed revisions. I've included the numbers below (and I do realize that this is a fairly small sample).
>> 
>> If this seems reasonable to most of the community, so be it - I work on a large server that chews through this stuff pretty quickly so I can certainly live with it. On the other hand, if this seems way higher than what you expect, it could very well be that something is wrong in my setup and I'd appreciate some pointers about how to go about investigating this. Finally, if others are seeing this and we as a community do feel that something can/should be done about this (although I don't know what that might be), perhaps we can start that discussion.
>> 
>> Setup: CMake with -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON -G Ninja
>> 
>> The numbers here are the total numbers of targets ninja reports as having rebuilt. Ninja is invoked only `-j <N>` for parameters (i.e. not check-all or any specific targets).
>> 
>> RevFrm, RevTo,  NumNinjaObjsRebuilt
>> 300000, 300200, 2957
>> 300200, 300400, 2692
>> 300400, 300600, 3001
>> 300600, 300800, 2877
>> 300800, 301000, 3003
>> 301000, 301200, 2750
>> 301200, 301400, 2579
>> 301400, 301600, 2709
>> 301600, 301700, 2325
>> 301700, 301800, 2357
>> 301800, 301900, 2667
>> 301900, 302000, 2466
>> 302000, 302100, 2499
>> 302100, 302200, 2063
>> 302200, 302250, 2884
>> 302250, 302300, 2007
>> 302300, 302350, 2209
>> 302350, 302400, 737
>> 302400, 302450, 2398
>> 302450, 302500, 2856
>> 302500, 302550, 2090
>> 302550, 302600, 2866
>> 302600, 302625, 1786
>> 302625, 302650, 1966
>> 302650, 302675, 1583
>> 302675, 302700, 307
>> 302700, 302725, 2246
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170707/41cc8c85/attachment.html>