Perhaps I should clarify I bit. It seems my subject line conflated the two distinct (but tangentially related) issues (perhaps it should have been two different emails). The subject line I should have used was something like "quieting output / speeding builds"<div>
<br></div><div>Yes, I agree that the number of times make is called is a big part of the slowdown, is there any way to reduce this overhead? I suspect reducing this overhead is extremely non-trivial.</div><div><br></div><div>
I still would like a way to quiet down the output. I am getting close to writing a wrapper for cmake that will filter the output, and perhaps simplify the inputs a little (or at least make them closer to what most of my devs are using right now to ease the transition)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Kevin<br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:55 PM, J Decker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:d3ck0r@gmail.com">d3ck0r@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Actually if you run it with make VERBOSE=1 you'll see that make is<br>
invoked a TON of times... each target is a seperate invokation of<br>
make, including using make to validate the cmake files are built...<br>
it's not really the output but the huge amount of times that make is<br>
run.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Kevin Fitch <<a href="mailto:kfitch42@gmail.com">kfitch42@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I am transitioning from a make based build system to cmake, overall I am<br>
> quite happy with cmake, but currently there are two snags:<br>
> 1) The main project I am doing this on is quite large, it produces about 300<br>
> targets. So, when I type 'make' I get 300 or so lines of "[ 27%] Built<br>
> target blah..." even when there is nothing (or very little) to do. This is<br>
> quite annoying. I tried messing with CMAKE_RULE_MESSAGES. I just added<br>
> -DCMAKE_RULE_MESSAGES=OFF to the cmake invocation. But that didn't seem to<br>
> help.<br>
> 2) The follow on to this is that a 'do-nothing' build still takes about 4<br>
> seconds (or about 1.25 seconds for "make -j". The previous make based build<br>
> was effectively instantaneous for a 'do-nothing' build. The do-nothing (or<br>
> do very little) build is the common case so I hate to regress that far.<br>
> Where should I be looking to address these issues?<br>
> I suspect (2) is a result of cmake generating a recursive make system (as<br>
> opposed to the current make based system we have that uses recursive<br>
> includes, instead of recursive make calls).<br>
> Kevin<br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Powered by <a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">www.kitware.com</a><br>
><br>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at<br>
> <a href="http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html</a><br>
><br>
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:<br>
> <a href="http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ</a><br>
><br>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:<br>
> <a href="http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake</a><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>