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

[Bill Deegan]

I have to think that given the output of  --tree=prune, even obfuscated, we
could create a tree of files and SConstruct/SConscripts to mimic it.
And then use that as a benchmark.
-Bill

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 5:56 PM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160813/c4db54d4/attachment-0001.html>