[Qbs] Qbs (way) faster than cmake (or benchmark issue)

Christian Gagneraud chgans at gmail.com
Mon Jul 22 13:08:56 CEST 2019

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:10, Oswald Buddenhagen
<oswald.buddenhagen at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:00:07AM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote:
> > At the 20 jobs mark, cmake start to stagnate, whereas qbs still make
> > use of parallelism, at the 30 jobs mark, cmake completely stopped
> > reducing overall build time, whereas qbs start to stagnate. At the 40
> > jobs mark, both systems are stale.
> >
> that means that qbs creates a build graph with fewer bottlenecks. cmake
> certainly could do that with relatively little effort as well, at the
> likely cost of slightly increased null rebuild times (due to the graph
> being bigger).
> some suggestions for making a diagram where the interesting stuff isn't
> crammed into a narrow strip at the bottom:
> - a logarithmic job count axis
> - build speed per job vs. job count
> - cpu utilization per core vs. job count
> - <your idea here>

You're on your own, you're trying to proof something everyone know
your're wrong.
you have to spend enregy, not us.

> _______________________________________________
> Qbs mailing list
> Qbs at qt-project.org
> https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/qbs

More information about the Qbs mailing list