lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: mainline build failure due to 281d0c962752 ("fortify: Add Clang support")
Date
From: Nick Desaulniers
> Sent: 22 June 2022 23:40
....
> > We don't actually take full advantage of that, because we do end up
> > doing a real "build" of an empty file, so "cc1" does actually get
> > executed, but even then it's done fairly efficiently with 'vfork()'.
> > That "cc-option" part of the kernel build is actually noticeable
> > during configuration etc, and clang is *much* slower because of how it
> > is built.
> >
> > See
> >
> > time clang -Werror -c -x c /dev/null
> >
> > and compare it with gcc. And if you want to see a really *big*
> > difference, pick a command line option that causes an error because it
> > doesn't exist..
>
> Looking at a profile, there's a lot of stupid stuff we're doing. We
> can probably get faster "at doing nothing." See
> https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/81a87ffa784c13d0bf60f60b1d54651b
> for the profile and my commentary/initial thoughts.
>
> >
> > I really wish clang wasn't so much noticeably slower. It's limiting
> > what I do with it, and I've had other developers say the same.
>
> We can do better. I'll keep pushing on this up my chain of command.
> That statement stands in stark contrast to the below:

The slow startup must also make a big difference to anything
that uses autoconf.
That tends to run a lot of compiles of trivial code just to
find out that the system is 'normal'.

David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-23 12:13    [W:0.091 / U:2.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site