cmake ftw

▲ JCWasmx86 3 months ago | parent | next [-]

Or meson is a serious alternative to cmake (Even better than cmake imho)

▲ torarnv 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

CMake also does sequential configuration AFAIK. Is there any work to improve on that somewhere?

▲ OskarS 3 months ago | parent [-]

Meson and cmake in my experience are both MUCH faster though. It’s much less of an issue with these systems than with autotools.

	▲	tavianator 3 months ago \| parent [-]
		Just tried reconfiguring LLVM: `27.24s user 8.71s system 99% cpu 36.218 total` Admittedly the LLVM build time dwarfs the configuration time, but still. If you're only building a smaller component then the config time dominates: `ninja libc 268.82s user 26.16s system 3246% cpu 9.086 total`

▲ aldanor 3 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You mean cargo build

▲

yjftsjthsd-h 3 months ago | parent [-]

... can cargo build things that aren't rust? If yes, that's really cool. If no, then it's not really in the same problem domain.

▲

kouteiheika 3 months ago | parent | next [-]

No it can't.

It can build a Rust program (build.rs) which builds things that aren't Rust, but that's an entirely different use case (building non-Rust library to use inside of Rust programs).

▲

crabbone 3 months ago | parent | prev [-]

There's GprBuild (Ada tool) that can build C (not sure about C++). It also has more elaborate configuration structure, but I didn't use it extensively to tell what exactly and how exactly does it do it. In combination with Alire it can also manage dependencies Cargo-style.

	▲	touisteur 3 months ago \| parent [-]
		Got it to build C++, CUDA and IIRC SYCL too.

▲ malkia 3 months ago | parent | prev [-]

cmake uses configure, or configure-like too!

▲

ahartmetz 3 months ago | parent [-]

Same concept, but completely different implementation.

▲

malkia 3 months ago | parent [-]

still slow, even if it does multiple processes - lots of "discovery" that are only on your machine, or whatever the CI machine had in mind. Instead it should be - "You should expect this, that and that", and by nature of building it - it fails.

Discovery is the wrong thing to do nowadays.

▲

ahartmetz 3 months ago | parent [-]

I don't think I'd want a "fail late with a possibly unclear error" build system. There is also the problem that finding the path of dependencies happens at the same time as finding if you have them, and removing one without the other doesn't seem to be very useful.

At best, I think you could have a system that defers some / most dependency discovery until after configure time, but still aborts the build with "required libfoo >= 0.81.0 not found" if necessary.

And no, you are not going to be able to tell everyone exactly where everything needs to be installed unless it's an internal product.

	▲	malkia 3 months ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, to all to their needs. In my case I want reproducible build, but to start I first want build that at least passes the same compiler flags around, and links same things no matter what the computer is (it can still be different when comes to OS).