[CMake] Quieting/speeding output

Kevin Fitch kfitch42 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 10:45:18 EDT 2010


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"

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.

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)

Kevin

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 1:55 PM, J Decker <d3ck0r at gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually if you run it with make VERBOSE=1 you'll see that make is
> invoked a TON of times... each target is a seperate invokation of
> make, including using make to validate the cmake files are built...
> it's not really the output but the huge amount of times that make is
> run.
>
> On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Kevin Fitch <kfitch42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am transitioning from a make based build system to cmake, overall I am
> > quite happy with cmake, but currently there are two snags:
> > 1) The main project I am doing this on is quite large, it produces about
> 300
> > targets. So, when I type 'make' I get 300 or so lines of "[ 27%] Built
> > target blah..." even when there is nothing (or very little) to do. This
> is
> > quite annoying. I tried messing with CMAKE_RULE_MESSAGES. I just added
> > -DCMAKE_RULE_MESSAGES=OFF to the cmake invocation. But that didn't seem
> to
> > help.
> > 2) The follow on to this is that a 'do-nothing' build still takes about 4
> > seconds (or about 1.25 seconds for "make -j". The previous make based
> build
> > was effectively instantaneous for a 'do-nothing' build. The do-nothing
> (or
> > do very little) build is the common case so I hate to regress that far.
> > Where should I be looking to address these issues?
> > I suspect (2) is a result of cmake generating a recursive make system (as
> > opposed to the current make based system we have that uses recursive
> > includes, instead of recursive make calls).
> > Kevin
> > _______________________________________________
> > Powered by www.kitware.com
> >
> > Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> > http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> >
> > Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
> > http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
> >
> > Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/attachments/20100712/b9b4da4b/attachment.htm>


More information about the CMake mailing list