[Qbs] Who compared build times of Qt Creator with CMake and qbs?
Christian Gagneraud
chgans at gmail.com
Wed May 15 16:01:21 CEST 2019
On Thu, 16 May 2019 at 01:45, Orgad Shaneh <orgads at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I compared qbs and cmake/ninja, and got these results (Debug build, no QbsPM and no Clang):
>
> Notice that qbs builds unit tests, which cmake doesn't.
>
> time qbs -f ../qt-creator/qtcreator.qbs profile:qt-5-11-1 modules.cpp.compilerWrapper:ccache
> cold ccache:
> real 5m26.149s
> user 125m3.443s
> sys 16m55.134s
>
> warm cache:
> real 1m40.335s
> user 17m20.419s
> sys 4m12.409s
>
> time cmake ../qt-creator -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER_LAUNCHER=ccache -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER_LAUNCHER=ccache -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug -G Ninja
> real 0m8.256s
> user 0m7.425s
> sys 0m0.827s
>
> time ninja
> cold cache:
> real 5m23.413s
> user 128m25.457s
> sys 16m11.551s
>
> time ninja:
> warm cache:
> real 0m45.964s
> user 7m12.563s
> sys 2m23.616s
>
Thanks for reporting, i'm planning to run my own benchmark as well,
not to state who's the winner, just for curiosity.
One important metric IMHO is the ratio sys/user, as it shows I/O
bottlenecks (esp. relevant when doing debug builds with hot ccache).
In my setup i will use ram disks for ccache and build dir (source dir
has nearly no effects)
It used to be my typical config (had to fight for memory tho), until i
got a new machine with NVRam as mass storage. It's almost as fast as
ramdisks.
As well, please note that the current CMake doesn't build as much
stuff as the qbs one. Not sure the difference is huge, but you need to
compare "equal jobs".
Chris
More information about the Qbs
mailing list