Originally posted by emblemparade
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Porting Mesa/Libdrm's Build System To Meson Brings Up Controversy
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
-
Originally posted by ldo17 View PostPlease, always say “make -jn”, never “make -j”. Do you know what happens when you run an actual “make -j”? I have tried it myself, just for (masochistic) fun...
Comment
-
Originally posted by ldo17 View Post
I’m not sure why. Sooner or later you will need to run custom command sequences at build time, and then what do you do?
As nice as it is knowing that the build system can't easily break or be exploited by changing a configuration file, it's also a massive pain in the arse when one actually has to add new features.
Comment
-
Originally posted by doom_Oo7 View PostWhile the initial build is roughly similar in speed between ninja and make, subsequent builds (when only one file out of hundreds changes) are significantly faster with Ninja than with Make.
But I do hear you more generally: the whole autotools route is very complicated. Writing a robust and efficient Makefile by hand that supports incremental compilation is hard. I see so many Makefiles out there that are incredibly inefficient. People just accept that it works and are good with that. We want to write code; who wants to waste time on the build system? So, the advantage of using these more modern frontends is that an optimized Ninja file (or Makefile) is produced for you and you don't have to worry about these details. A good comparison would be to use CMake with either Ninja or Make -- you will find the end result equally fast. I suggest you try it if you want to be convinced. (Again, I still prefer Ninja myself, but the reason is its minimalism, not its speed.)
Sorry for confusing people with my `make -j` comment. Of course you want to add a number after the j!
Comment
Comment