[boris]

> It also has 6 seconds of inactivity before starting any useful work. For comparison, ninja takes 0.4 seconds to start compiling the 2,468,083 line llvm project. Ninja is not a 100% fair comparison to other tools, because it benefits from some “baked in” build logic by the tool that created the ninja file, but I think it’s a reasonable “speed of light” performance benchmark for build systems.

This is an important observation that is often overlooked. What’s more, the changes to the information on which this “baked in” build logic is based is not tracked very precisely.

How close can we get to this “speed of light” without such “baking in”? I ran a little benchmark (not 100% accurate for various reasons but good enough as a general indication) which builds the same project (Xerces-C++) both with ninja as configured by CMake and with build2, which doesn’t require a separate step and does configuration management as part of the build (and with precise change tracking). Ninja builds this project from scratch in 3.23s while build2 builds it in 3.54s. If we omit some of the steps done by CMake (like generating config.h) by not cleaning the corresponding files, then the time goes down to 3.28s. For reference, the CMake step takes 4.83s. So a fully from-scratch CMake+ninja build actually takes 8s, which is what you would normally pay if you were using this project as a dependency.

[remexre]

> What’s more, the changes to the information on which this “baked in” build logic is based is not tracked very precisely.

kbuild handles this on top of Make by having each target depend on a dummy file that gets updated when e.g. the CFLAGS change. It also treats Make a lot more like Ninja (e.g. avoiding putting the entire build graph into every Make process) -- I'd be interested to see how it compares.