Related
I once worked on a C++ project that took about an hour and a half for a full rebuild. Small edit, build, test cycles took about 5 to 10 minutes. It was an unproductive nightmare.
What is the worst build times you ever had to handle?
What strategies have you used to improve build times on large projects?
Update:
How much do you think the language used is to blame for the problem? I think C++ is prone to massive dependencies on large projects, which often means even simple changes to the source code can result in a massive rebuild. Which language do you think copes with large project dependency issues best?
Forward declaration
pimpl idiom
Precompiled headers
Parallel compilation (e.g. MPCL add-in for Visual Studio).
Distributed compilation (e.g. Incredibuild for Visual Studio).
Incremental build
Split build in several "projects" so not compile all the code if not needed.
[Later Edit]
8. Buy faster machines.
My strategy is pretty simple - I don't do large projects. The whole thrust of modern computing is away from the giant and monolithic and towards the small and componentised. So when I work on projects, I break things up into libraries and other components that can be built and tested independantly, and which have minimal dependancies on each other. A "full build" in this kind of environment never actually takes place, so there is no problem.
One trick that sometimes helps is to include everything into one .cpp file. Since includes are processed once per file, this can save you a lot of time. (The downside to this is that it makes it impossible for the compiler to parallelize compilation)
You should be able to specify that multiple .cpp files should be compiled in parallel (-j with make on linux, /MP on MSVC - MSVC also has an option to compile multiple projects in parallel. These are separate options, and there's no reason why you shouldn't use both)
In the same vein, distributed builds (Incredibuild, for example), may help take the load off a single system.
SSD disks are supposed to be a big win, although I haven't tested this myself (but a C++ build touches a huge number of files, which can quickly become a bottleneck).
Precompiled headers can help too, when used with care. (They can also hurt you, if they have to be recompiled too often).
And finally, trying to minimize dependencies in the code itself is important. Use the pImpl idiom, use forward declarations, keep the code as modular as possible. In some cases, use of templates may help you decouple classes and minimize dependencies. (In other cases, templates can slow down compilation significantly, of course)
But yes, you're right, this is very much a language thing. I don't know of another language which suffers from the problem to this extent. Most languages have a module system that allows them to eliminate header files, which area huge factor. C has header files, but is such a simple language that compile times are still manageable. C++ gets the worst of both worlds. A big complex language, and a terrible primitive build mechanism that requires a huge amount of code to be parsed again and again.
Multi core compilation. Very fast with 8 cores compiling on the I7.
Incremental linking
External constants
Removed inline methods on C++ classes.
The last two gave us a reduced linking time from around 12 minutes to 1-2 minutes. Note that this is only needed if things have a huge visibility, i.e. seen "everywhere" and if there are many different constants and classes.
Cheers
IncrediBuild
Unity Builds
Incredibuild
Pointer to implementation
forward declarations
compiling "finished" sections of the proejct into dll's
ccache & distcc (for C/C++ projects) -
ccache caches compiled output, using the pre-processed file as the 'key' for finding the output. This is great because pre-processing is pretty quick, and quite often changes that force recompile don't actually change the source for many files. Also, it really speeds up a full re-compile. Also nice is the instance where you can have a shared cache among team members. This means that only the first guy to grab the latest code actually compiles anything.
distcc does distributed compilation across a network of machines. This is only good if you HAVE a network of machines to use for compilation. It goes well with ccache, and only moves the pre-processed source around, so the only thing you have to worry about on the compiler engine systems is that they have the right compiler (no need for headers or your entire source tree to be visible).
The best suggestion is to build makefiles that actually understand dependencies and do not automatically rebuild the world for a small change. But, if a full rebuild takes 90 minutes, and a small rebuild takes 5-10 minutes, odds are good that your build system already does that.
Can the build be done in parallel? Either with multiple cores, or with multiple servers?
Checkin pre-compiled bits for pieces that really are static and do not need to be rebuilt every time. 3rd party tools/libraries that are used, but not altered are a good candidate for this treatment.
Limit the build to a single 'stream' if applicable. The 'full product' might include things like a debug version, or both 32 and 64 bit versions, or may include help files or man pages that are derived/built every time. Removing components that are not necessary for development can dramatically reduce the build time.
Does the build also package the product? Is that really required for development and testing? Does the build incorporate some basic sanity tests that can be skipped?
Finally, you can re-factor the code base to be more modular and to have fewer dependencies. Large Scale C++ Software Design is an excellent reference for learning to decouple large software products into something that is easier to maintain and faster to build.
EDIT: Building on a local filesystem as opposed to a NFS mounted filesystem can also dramatically speed up build times.
Fiddle with the compiler optimisation flags,
use option -j4 for gmake for parallel compilation (multicore or single core)
if you are using clearmake , use winking
we can take out the debug flags..in extreme cases.
Use some powerful servers.
This book Large-Scale C++ Software Design has very good advice I've used in past projects.
Minimize your public API
Minimize inline functions in your API. (Unfortunately this also increases linker requirements).
Maximize forward declarations.
Reduce coupling between code. For instance pass in two integers to a function, for coordinates, instead of your custom Point class that has it's own header file.
Use Incredibuild. But it has some issues sometimes.
Do NOT put code that get exported from two different modules in the SAME header file.
Use the PImple idiom. Mentioned before, but bears repeating.
Use Pre-compiled headers.
Avoid C++/CLI (i.e. managed c++). Linker times are impacted too.
Avoid using a global header file that includes 'everything else' in your API.
Don't put a dependency on a lib file if your code doesn't really need it.
Know the difference between including files with quotes and angle brackets.
Powerful compilation machines and parallel compilers. We also make sure the full build is needed as little as possible. We don't alter the code to make it compile faster.
Efficiency and correctness is more important than compilation speed.
In Visual Studio, you can set number of project to compile at a time. Its default value is 2, increasing that would reduce some time.
This will help if you don't want to mess with the code.
This is the list of things we did for a development under Linux :
As Warrior noted, use parallel builds (make -jN)
We use distributed builds (currently icecream which is very easy to setup), with this we can have tens or processors at a given time. This also has the advantage of giving the builds to the most powerful and less loaded machines.
We use ccache so that when you do a make clean, you don't have to really recompile your sources that didn't change, it's copied from a cache.
Note also that debug builds are usually faster to compile since the compiler doesn't have to make optimisations.
We tried creating proxy classes once.
These are really a simplified version of a class that only includes the public interface, reducing the number of internal dependencies that need to be exposed in the header file. However, they came with a heavy price of spreading each class over several files that all needed to be updated when changes to the class interface were made.
In general large C++ projects that I've worked on that had slow build times were pretty messy, with lots of interdependencies scattered through the code (the same include files used in most cpps, fat interfaces instead of slim ones). In those cases, the slow build time was just a symptom of the larger problem, and a minor symptom at that. Refactoring to make clearer interfaces and break code out into libraries improved the architecture, as well as the build time. When you make a library, it forces you to think about what is an interface and what isn't, which will actually (in my experience) end up improving the code base. If there's no technical reason to have to divide the code, some programmers through the course of maintenance will just throw anything into any header file.
Cătălin Pitiș covered a lot of good things. Other ones we do:
Have a tool that generates reduced Visual Studio .sln files for people working in a specific sub-area of a very large overall project
Cache DLLs and pdbs from when they are built on CI for distribution on developer machines
For CI, make sure that the link machine in particular has lots of memory and high-end drives
Store some expensive-to-regenerate files in source control, even though they could be created as part of the build
Replace Visual Studio's checking of what needs to be relinked by our own script tailored to our circumstances
It's a pet peeve of mine, so even though you already accepted an excellent answer, I'll chime in:
In C++, it's less the language as such, but the language-mandated build model that was great back in the seventies, and the header-heavy libraries.
The only thing that is wrong about Cătălin Pitiș' reply: "buy faster machines" should go first. It is the easyest way with the least impact.
My worst was about 80 minutes on an aging build machine running VC6 on W2K Professional. The same project (with tons of new code) now takes under 6 minutes on a machine with 4 hyperthreaded cores, 8G RAM Win 7 x64 and decent disks. (A similar machine, about 10..20% less processor power, with 4G RAM and Vista x86 takes twice as long)
Strangely, incremental builds are most of the time slower than full rebuuilds now.
Full build is about 2 hours. I try to avoid making modification to the base classes and since my work is mainly on the implementation of these base classes I only need to build small components (couple of minutes).
Create some unit test projects to test individual libraries, so that if you need to edit low level classes that would cause a huge rebuild, you can use TDD to know your new code works before you rebuild the entire app. The John Lakos book as mentioned by Themis has some very practical advice for restructuring your libraries to make this possible.
I'm currently trying to optimise build speed for a big project with following in mind:
build speed is priority 1
resulting binaries size does not matter
Infos:
Environment: Visual Studio 2012 (required, because of the software I'm developing for) + Windows machine
BuildTime: 12mins (clean build), 1min for small changes and every now and than small changes result in 5-6min because of slow linking (this is what I want to address)
Custom files in project: approx. 2500 (SDK I need to use excluded, a big SDK for a CAD system)
Lines of code in custom files: approx. 500000
I'm using an up-to-date CAD capable computer (32GB RAM, >3GHz QuadCore, SSD)
Ideas:
use precompiled headers => done, but does not have the effect I want; helps speed up compile time most of the time, but every now and than does not
split up project into libraries => not sure if this helps
Questions
I could not find anything about using libraries and build speed, but I assume if I precompile libraries, the linker will be faster.
Is this assumption true?
If I make a static library with the core functions, will this have an effect on build time? Or will the linker need as long as it does currently?
If I make a dynamic library, will this have an effect on build time? Or will the linker again check the dll completely and will need the same time?
I assume if I precompile libraries, the linker will be faster. Is this assumption true?
No, not likely. If at all (because the linker has to open fewer files), then the difference will be marginal.
If I make a static library with the core functions, will this have an effect on build time? Or will the linker need as long as it does currently?
It may make a huge difference on compile time, since although on a truly clean rebuild you still have to compile everything as before, on a normal "mostly clean" rebuild rebuilding the support libraries is superfluous since nothing ever changes inside them, so all you really need to rebuild is the user code, and as a result you compile a lot fewer files.
Note that every sane build system normally builds a dependency graph and tries to compile as few files as possible anyway (and, to the extent possible, with some level of parallelism), unless you explicitly tell it to do a clean build (which is rarely necessary to be done). Doctor, it hurts when I do this -- well, don't do it.
The difference for the linker will, again, be marginal. The linker still needs to look up the exact same amount of symbols, and still needs to copy the same amount of code into the executable.
You may want to play with link order. Funny as it sounds, sometimes the order in which libraries and object files are linked makes a 5x difference on how long it takes the linker to do its job.
That being said, 12 minutes for a clean build indeed isn't a lot. Your non-clean buils will likely be in the two-digit second range, of which linking probably takes 90%. That's normally not a showstopper. Come back when a build takes 4 hours :-)
If I make a dynamic library, will this have an effect on build time? Or will the linker again check the dll completely and will need the same time?
The linker will still have to do some work for every function you call, which might be slightly faster, but will still be more or less the same.
Note that you add runtime (startup) overhead by moving code into a DLL. It is more work for the loader to load a program with parts of the code in a DLL as it needs to load another image, parse its header, resolve symbols, set up some pointers, run per-thread init functions, etc. That's usually not an issue (the difference is not really that much noticeable), just letting you know it's not free.
12 minutes is a short full build time and 500KLOC is not that big. Many free software projects (GCC, Qt, ...) have longer ones (hours) and millions of C++ lines.
You might want to use a serious and parallel build automation tool, such as ninja. Perhaps you could do some distributed build (like what distcc permits) if you can compile on remote machines.
You could configure your IDE to run an external command (such as ninja) for builds. This don't change autocompletion abilities. You could adopt another source code editor (e.g. GNU emacs).
C++ is not (yet) modular (it does not have genuine modules, like e.g. Ocaml or Go), and that makes its compilation slow (e.g. because standard container headers are big, e.g. <vector> brings about 10KLOC of included code, probably used and included in most of your C++ code). So you should avoid having many small files (e.g. merging two files of 250 lines each into one of 500 lines could decrease build time) and it looks like you have too much small C++ files. I would recommend source files of more than a thousand lines each. Having only one class implementation (or one function) per source file slows down the total build time.
You surely want to use more indirection in your code. Use more systematically PIMPL idioms and virtual method tables, closures, std::function-s. Remember the rule of five.
I'm working on a large solution that has thousands of source files, some of them can have over a thousand includes due to the use of Boost and dependency problems. While compiling in parallel on a 12 core Xeon E5-2690 v2 machine (windows 7) it takes up to 4 hours to rebuild the solution using Waf 1.7.13. What can I do to speed things up?
A few things that come to mind:
Use forward declarations and PIMPL.
Review your code base to see if you have created unnecessary templates when normal classes or functions would have been sufficient.
Try to implement your own templates in terms of non-generic implementations operating on void* where applicable, the templates serving merely as type-safe wrappers (see "Item 42: Use private inheritance judiciously" in "More Effective C++" for a nice example).
Check your compiler's documentation for precompiled headers.
Refactor your application's entire architecture so that there are more internal libraries and a smaller application layer, the goal being that in the long run the libraries become so stable that you don't have to rebuild them all the time.
Experiment with optimisation flags. See if you can turn down optimisation in several specific compilation units where optimisation doesn't make a measurable difference in execution speed or binary size yet signficantly increases compilation times.
If refactoring to remove dependencies is not an option, and the build architecture is so unreliable that you have to clean and rebuild all from time to time (in a perfect world this should never happen), you can:
Improve your machine: use an SSD hard disk and/or lot of RAM. If the project has thousand of source files, you will need to hit the disk a lot of times, with random but cacheable accesses. For 12 core machine with hyper threading I would suggest no less than 24gb of ram, probably better going toward 32. You should measure what is your source code size and how much ram is used by the concurrent 24 compilers you can run in parallel.
Use a compiler cache. I don't know how to setup such environment from windows, and with your build system, so I can't suggest much here.
The culprit is likely the structure of your project itself: the expected time for rebuilding is roughly proportional to the number of source files times the number of headers they include. With strong template based programming, that effort grows with the square of source files.
So, you have exactly two contrary options to get your total compilation time down:
You reduce the number of headers included by each source file. That means you have to avoid any templates that use templates. Try to reduce inter-template dependencies as much as you can.
Program only in headers and only use a single .cpp file which instanciates all the different templates in your application. This avoids any recompilation of a header.
A possible variant of this is to create a precompiled header from all header files in your project, so that precompiling the header takes the bulk of the building time.
Of course, option 2 means that there is no such thing as an incremental build, you will need to recompile the entire project everytime you compile. This can make your project entirely unmaintainable. So, I would strongly suggest to go for option 1. But that requires a different programming style (one that uses templates very sparingly) than your project seems to be written in.
In either case, there is no magic bullet: It is not likely possible to make a significant change to the compilation time without restructuring the entire project.
Some suggestions you could try relatively easily:
Use distributed compilation using IncrediBuild or such
Use "unity" builds, i.e. including several cpp files in a single cpp file and compiling only the unity cpp's (you can have a simple tool building the unity cpp's with given number of cpp files in each). Even though I'm not big fan of this technique due to its shortcomings I have seen it employed quite often in projects with bad physical structure to optimize compile & link times.
Use "#pragma once" in headers
Use precompiled headers
Optimize redundant #include's in header files. I don't know if there's a tool for it, but you could easily build a tool which comments out #includes in headers and tries to compile them to see which ones are not needed.
Profile #include file compilation speeds and focus on addressing the worst performers and the ones that are deepest in the #include chain. I.e. use forward declarations instead of #include's, etc.
Buy more/better hardware
I am using SUSE10 (64 bit)/AIX (5.1) and HP I64 (11.3) to compile my application. Just to give some background, my application has around 200KLOC (2Lacs) lines of code (without templates). It is purely C++ code. From measurements, I see that compile time ranges from 45 minutes(SUSE) to around 75 minutes(AIX).
Question 1 : Is this time normal (acceptable)?
Question 2 : I want to re-engineer the code arrangement and reduce the compile time. Is there any GNU tool which can help me to do this?
PS :
a. Most of the question in stackoverflow was related to Visual Studio, so I had to post a separate question.
b. I use gcc 4.1.2 version.
c. Another info (which might be useful) is code is spread across around 130 .cpp files but code distribution varies from 1KLOC to 8 KLOCK in a file.
Thanks in advance for you help!!!
Edit 1 (after comments)
#PaulR "Are you using makefiles for this ? Do you always do a full (clean) build or just build incrementally ?"
Yes we are using make files for project building.
Sometimes we are forced to do the full build (like over-night build/run or automated run or refresh complete code since many members have changed many files). So I have posted in general sense.
Excessive (or seemingly excessive) compilation times are often caused by an overly complicated include file hierarchy.
While not exactly a tool for this purpose, doxygen could be quite helpful: among other charts it can display the include file hierarchy for every source file in the project. I have found many interesting and convoluted include dependencies in my projects.
Read John Lakos's Large-Scale C++ Design for some very good methods of analysing and re-organising the structure of the project in order to minimise dependencies. Ultimately the time taken to build a large project increases as the amount of code increases, but also as the dependencies increase (or at least the impact of changes to header files increases as the dependencies increase). So minimising those dependencies is one thing to aim for. Lakos's concept of Levelization is very helpful in working out how to split several large monolothic inter-dependent libraries into something with a much better structure.
I can't address your specific questions but I use ccache to help with compile times, which caches object files and will use the same ones if source files do not change. If you are using SuSE, it should come with your distribution.
In addition to the already mentioned ccache, have a look at distcc. Throwing more hardware at such a scalable problem is cheap and simple.
Long compile times in large C++ projects are almost always caused by inappropriate use of header files. Section 9.3.2 of The C++ Programming Language provide some useful points this. Precompiling header files can considerably reduce compile time of large projects. See the GNU documentation on Precompiled Headers for more information.
Make sure that your main make targets can be executed in parallel (make -j <CPU_COUNT+1>) and of course try to use ccache. In addition we experimented with ccache and RAM disks, if you export CCACHE_DIR and point it to a RAM disk this will speed up your compilation process as well.
Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
I recently had cause to work with some Visual Studio C++ projects with the usual Debug and Release configurations, but also 'Release All' and 'Debug All', which I had never seen before.
It turns out the author of the projects has a single ALL.cpp which #includes all other .cpp files. The *All configurations just build this one ALL.cpp file. It is of course excluded from the regular configurations, and regular configurations don't build ALL.cpp
I just wondered if this was a common practice? What benefits does it bring? (My first reaction was that it smelled bad.)
What kinds of pitfalls are you likely to encounter with this? One I can think of is if you have anonymous namespaces in your .cpps, they're no longer 'private' to that cpp but now visible in other cpps as well?
All the projects build DLLs, so having data in anonymous namespaces wouldn't be a good idea, right? But functions would be OK?
It's referred to by some (and google-able) as a "Unity Build". It links insanely fast and compiles reasonably quickly as well. It's great for builds you don't need to iterate on, like a release build from a central server, but it isn't necessarily for incremental building.
And it's a PITA to maintain.
EDIT: here's the first google link for more info: http://buffered.io/posts/the-magic-of-unity-builds/
The thing that makes it fast is that the compiler only needs to read in everything once, compile out, then link, rather than doing that for every .cpp file.
Bruce Dawson has a much better write up about this on his blog: http://randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/03/22/make-vc-compiles-fast-through-parallel-compilation/
Unity builds improved build speeds for three main reasons. The first reason is that all of the shared header files only need to be parsed once. Many C++ projects have a lot of header files that are included by most or all CPP files and the redundant parsing of these is the main cost of compilation, especially if you have many short source files. Precompiled header files can help with this cost, but usually there are a lot of header files which are not precompiled.
The next main reason that unity builds improve build speeds is because the compiler is invoked fewer times. There is some startup cost with invoking the compiler.
Finally, the reduction in redundant header parsing means a reduction in redundant code-gen for inlined functions, so the total size of object files is smaller, which makes linking faster.
Unity builds can also give better code-gen.
Unity builds are NOT faster because of reduced disk I/O. I have profiled many builds with xperf and I know what I'm talking about. If you have sufficient memory then the OS disk cache will avoid the redundant I/O - subsequent reads of a header will come from the OS disk cache. If you don't have enough memory then unity builds could even make build times worse by causing the compiler's memory footprint to exceed available memory and get paged out.
Disk I/O is expensive, which is why all operating systems aggressively cache data in order to avoid redundant disk I/O.
I wonder if that ALL.cpp is attempting to put the entire project within a single compilation unit, to improve the ability for the compiler to optimize the program for size?
Normally some optimizations are only performed within distinct compilation units, such as removal of duplicate code and inlining.
That said, I seem to remember that recent compilers (Microsoft's, Intel's, but I don't think this includes GCC) can do this optimization across multiple compilation units, so I suspect that this 'trick' is unneccessary.
That said, it would be curious to see if there is indeed any difference.
I agree with Bruce; from my experience I had tried implementing the Unity Build for one of my .dll projects which had a ton of header includes and lots of .cpps; to bring down the overall Compilation time on the VS2010(had already exhausted the Incremental Build options) but rather than cutting down the Compilation time, I ran out of memory and the Build not even able to finish the Compilation.
However to add; I did find enabling the Multi-Processor Compilation option in Visual Studio quite helps in cutting down the Compilation time; I am not sure if such an option is available across other platform compilers.
In addition to Bruce Dawson's excellent answer the following link brings more insights onto the pros and cons of unity builds - https://github.com/onqtam/ucm#unity-builds
We have a multi platform project for MacOS and Windows. We have lots of large templates and many headers to include. We halfed build time with Visual Studio 2017 msvc using precompiled headers. For MacOS we tried several days to reduce build time but precompiled headers only reduced build time to 85%. Using a single .cpp-File was the breakthrough. We simply create this ALL.cpp with a script. Our ALL.cpp contains a list of includes of all .cpp-Files of our project. We reduce build time to 30% with XCode 9.0. The only drawback was we had to give names to all private unamed compilation unit namespaces in .cpp-Files. Otherwise the local names will clash.