Comment by estebank
1 year ago
Note that Mold has no interest in becoming incremental, so there is a big reason there for another linker to exist. I find it kind of embarrassing that MS' linker has been incremental by default for decades, yet there's no production ready incremental linker on Linux yet.
OTOH even lld, fast but fairly slower than mold, is already incredibly faster than MS's linker even without the incrmeentality. Like, I'm routinely linking hundreds of megabytes in less than a second anyways, not sure incrementality is that much worth it
Not a rhetorical question: Could it be that part of the speed difference is due to the file system speed? I was shocked when I saw how much modern(ish) Windows file systems were slower than modern(ish) Linux ones.
NTFS and ReFS are high performance file systems. But yes, it is due to file system filters, which OOTB means Windows Defender, though that can be extended by 3rd parties, including Sysinternals utils such as procmon.
Microsoft built a very extensible I/O stack and prior to Defender/prior to SSDs it really wasn't very noticable... back when it was originally designed well through the 90s and early 00s.
Unfortunately it is now noticable despite being an otherwise smart design. Which means Windows and/or NTFS are blamed as being slow, neither of which has any basis in fact when we look at the overall design of Windows' subsystems/VMM in comparison to macOS/Linux.
It sucks. You've got great plumbing in Windows with a shit shell on top.
1 reply →
it's usually windows defender and virus scanning that causes these massive slowdowns.
4 replies →
Additionally the way precompiled headers are handled in Visual C++ and C++ Builder have always been much better than traditional UNIX compilers, and now we have modules as well.
The way precompiled headers work in C++ is a bit of an ugly hack. And worse, it's almost as slow as just compiling them all every time anyway.
Only in traditional UNIX, which I mentioned.
Borland and Microsoft compilers have been dealing with them just fine since at very least 1994, when I started using Turbo C++ 3.1 for Windows.
It has to be a candidate for the longest biggest gap in build tooling ever.
[flagged]
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yes, I missed a word. And I believe pretty much everybody else realized what I meant to say.
Feel free to point me in the direction of a production grade incremental compiler that can run on Linux, GNU or otherwise.
I'm pretty sure that's a typo, and "incremental" was meant to be included in that sentence.
Yes, indeed I accidentally forgot about incremental there.
Why so hostile? Have a break, go look at the clouds, they are beautiful today!