Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-23 Thread Neil
Mike Hommey wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Neil wrote: David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a ./mach build frontend that repackages XUL and js code? Does ./mach build chrome work? make chrome/mach build chrome doesn't do everyth

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:06:13AM +0100, Neil wrote: > David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > > >Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a > > ./mach build frontend > >that repackages XUL and js code? > > > Does ./mach build chrome work? (I don't think it's parallelised > though.) Hopefully a combinat

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-22 Thread Avi Hal
(On win7, i7 @3.2GHz) Clobber build from 29 mins down to 24, no-op build from some minutes to 16s! \o/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-22 Thread Neil
David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a ./mach build frontend that repackages XUL and js code? Does ./mach build chrome work? (I don't think it's parallelised though.) Hopefully a combination of bug 929147 with bug 921003 will speed it up. -- Warning: May

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-21 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
I tend to use something like ./mach build browser/base browser/components browser/themes browser/locales browser/devtools (obviously including only the directories where I changed stuff) Which is fast and works. ~ Gijs On 21/10/13 23:47 , David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: Wouldn't it be inte

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-21 Thread Gregory Szorc
On the Q4 goals list. Bug 929147. On 10/21/2013 2:47 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a > ./mach build frontend > that repackages XUL and js code? > > > On 10/21/13 6:53 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >>> So what's the difference between |./mach build| an

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-21 Thread David Rajchenbach-Teller
Wouldn't it be interesting to also have a ./mach build frontend that repackages XUL and js code? On 10/21/13 6:53 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> So what's the difference between |./mach build| and |./mach build binaries|? >> would such difference exist also after updating mozillabuild with the ne

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-21 Thread Gregory Szorc
On 10/21/2013 9:47 AM, Avi Hal wrote: > On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:43:03 PM UTC+3, Mike Hommey wrote: > ... >> - Build with: >> >> ./mach build >> >> >> After you built once, you can do edit-compile-edit-compile cycles with: >> >> ./mach build binaries > > > So what's the difference

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-21 Thread Avi Hal
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 4:43:03 PM UTC+3, Mike Hommey wrote: ... > - Build with: > > ./mach build > > > After you built once, you can do edit-compile-edit-compile cycles with: > > ./mach build binaries So what's the difference between |./mach build| and |./mach build binaries|?

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-16 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:09:23PM -0700, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were > > left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last, as we are > > now bringing those

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-16 Thread Nicholas Nethercote
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > > I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were > left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last, as we are > now bringing those to you. In case you're interested how this happened... AIUI, these improvemen

Re: Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-16 Thread Chris Pearce
o get faster builds, so thanks very much. Cheers, Chris P. On 17-Oct-13 2:43 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: Hi, Episode 1 was the "You want faster builds, don't you" thread. Episode 2 was the "Faster builds, now" thread. Here comes episode 3. I'm sure fellow developers bui

Faster builds, now ; on windows, too.

2013-10-16 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi, Episode 1 was the "You want faster builds, don't you" thread. Episode 2 was the "Faster builds, now" thread. Here comes episode 3. I'm sure fellow developers building on Windows felt sad that they were left out on the recent build improvements. Rejoice at last

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-07 Thread Gijs Kruitbosch
On 07/10/13 14:11 , Honza Bambas wrote: Is this supposed to work on Windows too? a clobbered build of up to date m-c with export MOZ_PSEUDO_DERECURSE=1 gives me an error during configure phase (./mach build): No: On 10/2/2013 3:17 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: Except if you're using pymake, sadl

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-07 Thread Honza Bambas
Is this supposed to work on Windows too? a clobbered build of up to date m-c with export MOZ_PSEUDO_DERECURSE=1 gives me an error during configure phase (./mach build): 1:36.03 Traceback (most recent call last): 1:36.03 File "c:/Mozilla/src/mozilla-central/build/pymake/make.py", line 30,

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-03 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
On 2013-10-02 5:27 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:45AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: I just did a no-op ./mach build binaries on my debug build on a Mac, and it took about 28 seconds. $ time ./mach build binaries 0:01.96 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries 0:12.19 From ./dist/

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-02 Thread Mike Hommey
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:42:45AM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > I just did a no-op ./mach build binaries on my debug build on a Mac, > and it took about 28 seconds. > > $ time ./mach build binaries > 0:01.96 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries > 0:12.19 From ./dist/public: Kept 0 existing; Added/upda

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-02 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
Hmm, I'm not sure what's going on. I ran it again four times in a row and I got better results, but the timings show that there is a lot fo difference between the slow and fast cases (no idea why) $ time ./mach build binaries 0:00.81 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries 0:03.90 From ./dist/public:

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-02 Thread Patrick McManus
this works great for me.. touching network/protocol/http/nsHttpChannel.cpp and rebuilding with "mach build binaries" runs in 26 seconds compared to 61 with just "mach build", and I see the same ~35 second savings when doing it on a total nop build (39 vs 5). awesome. -P On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-02 Thread Gregory Szorc
8.8s here! ~1.5 is startup and checking the build backend is up to date (lots of stats) ~1.5s is processing install manifests. Rest is make processing. The fact that your machine spent ~20s doing install manifest processing tells me: a) Your directory tree wasn't cached (try running again) b)

Re: Faster builds, now.

2013-10-02 Thread Ehsan Akhgari
I just did a no-op ./mach build binaries on my debug build on a Mac, and it took about 28 seconds. $ time ./mach build binaries 0:01.96 /usr/bin/make -j8 -s binaries 0:12.19 From ./dist/public: Kept 0 existing; Added/updated 0; Removed 0 files and 0 directories. 0:12.22 From ./dist/sdk: Kept

Faster builds, now.

2013-10-01 Thread Mike Hommey
Hi, If you've read the "You want faster builds, don't you" thread, you may know that some build improvements have recently landed. I just landed the most important part of it all, and we should now be in a much better place, but, as I'm very cautious, and as this is incremental improvements to an