Re: [boost] Boost building with CMake

From: Bill Hoffman (bill.hoffman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-10 08:49:11

Michael Marcin wrote:
> How does it compare speed wise with other solutions? Fast incremental 
> builds are a very nice thing to have. There have been a few discussions 
> on the sweng mailing list where CMake has been brought up and I don't 
> think I ever saw performance reports for it.  Generally the attitude 
> there seems to be that Jam is best and KJam is better than that.  How 
> does CMake compare?
>   
The KDE folks and other projects have found CMake to be much faster than 
there previous
build tools:

"CMake searches for dependencies several times faster than the 
'./configure' process did.
CMake builds KDE 4's kdelibs about 40% faster than autotools build KDE 
3.5.6's kdelibs,
mostly due to a lack of libtool in the toolchain for CMake. The CMake 
toolchain (for UNIX)
looks something like: cmake + make, whereas the autotools chain for KDE 
3.5.6 looked
something like: automake + autoconf + libtool + make + sh + perl + m4."

http://dot.kde.org/1172083974/
http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-buildsystem/2006-April/002232.html

I am not sure how CMake compares to Jam.

-Bill