Build artefacts aren't cached?

Posted Oct 29, 2024 14:59 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
In reply to: Build artefacts aren't cached? by josh
Parent article: The performance of the Rust compiler

Is that a well known thing then?

Sounds like that's almost what people are looking for when iterating through the development process.

Cheers,
Wol

Build artefacts aren't cached?

Posted Oct 30, 2024 16:09 UTC (Wed) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link] (3 responses)

Incremental is on by default in dev builds (which are the default). They're off by default in release builds, for various reasons. That's something we may want to reconsider.

Build artefacts aren't cached?

Posted Oct 30, 2024 16:31 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

That actually makes a lot of sense.

So small changes while coding should compile pretty quickly.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier with "incremental=off" for release builds, simply because it gives an aura (maybe false?) of reproducibility. Or rather, it addresses the assumption that dev builds can't be reproducible "because".

Cheers,
Wol

Build artefacts aren't cached?

Posted Oct 30, 2024 16:39 UTC (Wed) by intelfx (guest, #130118) [Link] (1 responses)

> They're off by default in release builds, for various reasons. That's something we may want to reconsider.

Is there something that elaborates on these reasons?

Build artefacts aren't cached?

Posted Oct 31, 2024 9:26 UTC (Thu) by taladar (subscriber, #68407) [Link]

I believe the main reason is that some optimizations work better when they can consider the whole instead of just an incremental part.