[Scons-users] Performance of version 2.5.0 vs 2.3.0 on Windows host dropped significantly

[William Blevins]

Henrik (or anyone else suffering from this specific issue),

Sorry that I missed an optimization issue in 2.5.0. It hasn't seemed to
affect many projects, so it appears to be dependent on particular project
properties outside of my prediction and which I can only guess about. I was
curious if I had forgotten or neglected to run the scons_testsuite
<https://bitbucket.org/dirkbaechle/scons_testsuite> like a good developer.
Although I am not building all 6 with this machine/setup, of the 3 that
build with my current tool setup, there is very little performance
difference (1-2% tops).

Is your project source available? In order to try to minimize future risk,
it may be wise for the SCons team to add some diversity to the sample
builds for future profiles.

V/R,
William

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:47 AM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Henrik,
>
> It has been merged into the trunk and will be available in the future.
>
> V/R,
> William
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 7:45 AM, <hmnews at proconx.com> wrote:
>
>> William,
>>
>> Here are the stats for the full build (after clean):
>>
>> 2.3.0: 12.8s
>> 2.3.5: 13.3s
>> 2.3.6: 13.3s
>> 2.5.0: 19.3s
>> 2.5.0 with pull request applied: 13.42 !!!
>>
>> There is no measurable difference between 2.3.5, 2.3.6 and 2.5.0 with PR
>> applied. Differences in the sub-second level are influenced by measurement
>> noise. 2.3.0 appears slightly faster, I never managed to get below 13s with
>> the other versions.
>>
>> All measurements, these full build times and previous no-change times
>> were using num_jobs set to 8 which is my default.
>>
>> So I definitely suggest to roll your PR into the next release.
>>
>> Henrik
>>
>> William Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> Henrik,
>>>
>>> As a side note, the performance differences from previous versions is
>>> useful. Do you also happen to have performance for full builds for my
>>> reference? Some of those patches may have traded base overhead (slower
>>> already up-to-date) for faster runtime (full or partial build time).
>>>
>>> V/R,
>>> William
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Scons-users mailing list
>> Scons-users at scons.org
>> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20160814/2f6e53af/attachment.html>