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

[Bill Deegan]

It would also be useful to see that tree pre-2.5 and with 2.5, even
obfuscated.
-Bill

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
wrote:

> 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/abbef239/attachment.html>