public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
@ 2023-11-07 9:13 dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2023-11-07 12:15 ` [Bug bootstrap/112422] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: dcb314 at hotmail dot com @ 2023-11-07 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
Bug ID: 112422
Summary: Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
Product: gcc
Version: 14.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Target Milestone: ---
I just ran a gcc trunk build. The configure line was
CC="clang" CXX="clang++" \
../trunk.year/configure --prefix=/home/dcb38/gcc/results.$DATE.asan.ubsan \
--disable-multilib \
--disable-bootstrap \
--with-build-config=bootstrap-asan \
--with-build-config=bootstrap-ubsan \
--with-pkgversion=$HASH \
--enable-checking=df,extra,fold,rtl,yes \
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran
The command I used was
$ (date;make -j 20;date) > mk.out 2>&1
$ grep "checking for" mk.out | sort -k 2 | uniq -c | sort -rn > 1.out
$ head 1.out
20 checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
19 checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
18 checking for egrep... /usr/bin/grep -E
17 checking for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ranlib... ranlib
17 checking for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ar... ar
17 checking for unistd.h... (cached) yes
15 checking for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-objdump... objdump
15 checking for minix/config.h... no
14 checking for gawk... gawk
12 checking for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc... clang
That seems a lot of redundant checking to me.
Perhaps the build process could be made faster by only checking some properties
once and remembering the result for later ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/112422] Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
2023-11-07 9:13 [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ? dcb314 at hotmail dot com
@ 2023-11-07 12:15 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-07 14:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-07 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c |bootstrap
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I doubt configure is where most of the time is spent these days.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/112422] Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
2023-11-07 9:13 [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ? dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2023-11-07 12:15 ` [Bug bootstrap/112422] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-11-07 14:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-08 3:53 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-15 20:00 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-07 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
Keywords| |build
--- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
A lot of that's just the way that autoconf works. You'd probably have to change
the upstream implementation of certain autoconf macros to fix this.
Alternatively, you could also try configuring with the "-C" flag to your
configure script, which should cause configure results to be cached, but that
can be rather fragile, as the config.cache files can stop your build if the
slightest things to change. I suppose GCC could try sharing its config.cache
files more widely between its various subdirectories, but that would be
somewhat risky, given that some of the things that configure checks for could
change due to the whole bootstrap process (fixincludes changes the headers
available, the new compiler getting built changes which compiler should be
found, and what features it has, the new runtime libraries getting built change
what functions are available, and so on...)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/112422] Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
2023-11-07 9:13 [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ? dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2023-11-07 12:15 ` [Bug bootstrap/112422] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-07 14:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-11-08 3:53 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-15 20:00 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: sjames at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-11-08 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |84402
CC| |sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
There's some stuff we could cache for sure but it wouldn't be the majority of
the checks - stuff like finding tools like awk, sed should work regardless of
which stage we're in and so on.
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84402
[Bug 84402] [meta] GCC build system: parallelism bottleneck
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug bootstrap/112422] Build process does a redundant number of checks ?
2023-11-07 9:13 [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ? dcb314 at hotmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-11-08 3:53 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-06-15 20:00 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-06-15 20:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112422
--- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> There's some stuff we could cache for sure but it wouldn't be the majority
> of the checks - stuff like finding tools like awk, sed should work
> regardless of which stage we're in and so on.
gawk and sed were potential host modules at one point previously, too, but it
looks like they've been removed, so yeah I guess it'd be safe for them now...
anything that might fall in this category should get checked against
Makefile.def to make sure there aren't already potential modules for them for
people trying to combine trees or something...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-06-15 20:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-11-07 9:13 [Bug c/112422] New: Build process does a redundant number of checks ? dcb314 at hotmail dot com
2023-11-07 12:15 ` [Bug bootstrap/112422] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-07 14:17 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-08 3:53 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-06-15 20:00 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).