using clang (was: Re: ps, clang and make variables)

[Conrad J. Sabatier]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 17:57:31 -0600 (MDT)
Warren Block <wblock at wonkity.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 14:11:29 -0500
> > "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads at cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:29:45 -0600 (MDT)
> >> Warren Block <wblock at wonkity.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Have you tried clang with ccache?  Any tricks?
> >>
> >> No, I haven't tried that.  Actually, I don't believe I've ever even
> >> tried using ccache at all (at least, not that I can recall).  :-)
> >>
> >
> > You've piqued my curiosity here.  :-)
> >
> > I'm doing a buildworld at the moment using ccache with clang.  So
> > far, all is well, no problems.  Didn't do anything special to get
> > started, just "ccache make -DNO_CLEAN -j8 buildworld" (I have all
> > that clang-enabling stuff already in /etc/make.conf).  I know this
> > first run won't really show me much, other than that it *will*
> > compile OK. Subsequent runs should be interesting, though.  :-)
> 
> A few tests earlier today showed that with everything in cache, it
> took about 1.5 to 2 times as long to build with clang versus gcc
> 4.2.1.  It was faster with a full cache than without, of course:
> clang took 38 minutes with nothing in cache, about 12 minutes with
> everything cached, and gcc buildworlds have been as fast as six
> minutes.  A gcc all-cached test I just tried was 7:47.
> 
> For some reason, buildworlds on this Core I5 are much faster when 
> running powerd -a hadp than without.  And somewhat variable.

Well, unfortunately, I'm unable to do a successful buildworld at the
moment, with or without ccache, so the results are still up in the air
on that.  :-)

Will keep trying, though.  I *hate* when this happens!  :-)

-- 
Conrad J. Sabatier
conrads at cox.net