kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Tim Hutt <tdhutt@xxxxxxxxx>]

Qbs isn't qt-specific like qmake was. It just happens to be made by the Qt
people. It doesn't depend on Qt. As to why to use it, it is very fast due
to not being a make file generator, and it is a build system "done right"
for once (declarative rather than procedural, available as a library, etc).
Also Qt Creator supports it (though not very well yet) and it is probably
the best open source C++ IDE (though I have yet to try Jetbrains' new one).

Anyway don't worry, I wasn't suggesting it as a *replacement* for cmake. It
isn't mature enough yet. Just for development where you have to recompile a
lot.

I'll try the cmake trick first though. 15s down to 1s is very good! I'm not
familiar with cmake - please could you tell me (roughly) how to persuade it?

Cheers,

Tim
On 22 Oct 2014 22:15, "Martijn Kuipers" <martijn.kuipers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Tim,
> On 22 Oct 2014, at 17:45, Tim Hutt <tdhutt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Oh yeah I forgot to mention I have an SSD, and -j4 did not make a huge
> difference (can't remember exact time).
>
> I like the DLL solution though! I'm planning to (maybe) do a bit of work
> on the 3d viewer as it is not much code and quite self-contained. Seems to
> be a static library at the moment so I will maybe have a go at changing it
> to a dynamic one.
>
> I might also try porting to QBS (Qt's new build system) which is much
> faster than make in my experience.
>
>
> You can try, but my guess is that you should not expect a warm welcome for
> patches doing so. CMake may be slower, but it has shown to be able to deal
> with a whole lot of weird things on all platforms. The main devs and Dick
> (I am not) have spent so much time on this, that I doubt they´ll be very
> receptive. Also, kicad used Wx, why use a QT build-system?
>
> I am not trying to start a flamefest, but perhaps it convinces you to
> spend that time on other KiCad improvements.
>
> Kind regards,
> Martijn
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
> On 22 October 2014 14:40, Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostowski@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22.10.2014 15:01, Tim Hutt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>  However, if I perform a null-rebuild (i.e. I don't change anything and
>>> just run `make` again), it takes about 70 seconds to run.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I found it very annoying while developing the P&S, where I needed to very
>> frequently rebuild and re-link a small part of pcbnew. My solution was to:
>> - exclude the P&S sources from CMakeLists.txt
>> - build the P&S using a standard makefile (using same compiler options as
>> CMake)
>> - link it as a DLL with _pcbnew.kiface
>>
>> By doing this, I only had to rebuild the P&S DLL (taking few seconds)
>> instead of waiting ~2 minutes for the CMake to solve dependencies and GCC
>> linker to produce new .kiface image.
>>
>> It's just a dumb and ugly hack, but may help in some cases.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>