CMAKE VS MAKE HOW TO

CMake: How to setup Source, Library and CMakeLists.In this article, we have explored the differences between Make and CMake in depth.Increadibuild can boost the compilation time. For the Visual C++ compiler performance recommendations are provided from the Visual C++ team, see Use Clang/c2 instead of Visual C++ compiler. You have to check whether it supports already the needed features on your platform. Even faster than Gold Linker is lld from the LLVM project. If you still use a hard drive, consider switching to a solid state disk.ĭepending of your final output file, exchange the GNU standard linker with the Gold Linker. If your file I/O is very slow and since CMake works with dedicated binary output directories, make use of a RAM disk. I can accelerate the first part: $ time -p /MSYS64/bin/cmake.exe -G 'Ninja'. DCMAKE_EXE_LINKER_FLAGS:STRING='-Wl,-allow-multiple-definition' DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING='-march=native -m64 -Ofast -flto' cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE:STRING='Release' When I use MinGW64/MSYS to rebuild CMake 3.5.2 with e.g. CMake's officially distributed binaries are just a compromise to work on every possible CPU architecture.

CMAKE VS MAKE CODE

If you often do changes to the CMake code itself, think about rebuilding CMake from sources optimized for your machine's architecture. Think of a different set of compiler/linker options for your daily work (but only if you also have some test time/experience with the final release build options). switch to binary delivery of some libraries - find_library(). Split less frequently changed or stable code parts into separate CMake projects and use CMake's ExternalProject_Add() or - if you e.g. So you can make more use of CMake's Object Libraries to reduce those, but it makes your CMake code a little bit uglier. Linking CXX executable CMakeTest.exeī.) Linking is always such a synchronization point. If you get to a point where the build has a dependency to another artifact, it has to wait until those are compiled (synchronization points). Just be aware ofĪ.) You need to setup the target dependencies in CMake correctly. It's faster, makes use of all available CPU cores automatically and has a good dependency management. Here's what I had good results with using CMake and Visual Studio or GNU toolchains:Įxchange GNU make with Ninja. So I have a total of ~140 seconds and my goal - for this admittedly very simple example - would be to get this down to about 10-20% of what I get with the standard settings/tools. The CXX compiler identification is GNU 4.8.1 Just to make this a little more concrete, if I take my CMake example from here with 100 libraries using MSYS/GNU I got the following time measurement results: $ cmake -versionĬMake suite maintained and supported by Kitware (/cmake). The former just handles the basics (parallel make), the later handles mostly how to speed-up parsing CMake files.

CMAKE VS MAKE PLUS

Plus I know of the recommendations to be found in CMake's Wiki: So my focus in this question is on the first point. Invest in a better hardware (SSD, CPU, memory) Optimize your code base/software architecture (e.g by reducing the dependencies and use well-defined sub-projects - unit tests) If there is probably no cross-platform compile time optimization, I'm mainly interested in Visual Studio or GNU toochain based approaches.Īnd I'm already aware of and investing into the generally recommended areas to speed up C++ builds: I came across several SO questions regarding specific aspects of improving the turn-around time of CMake enabled C++ projects lately (like 'At what level should I distribute my build process?' or 'cmake rebuild_cache for just a subdirectory?'), I was wondering if there is a more general guidance utilizing the specific possibilities CMake offers.

Cmake vs make