Boost logo

Boost :

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."

I am not sure how CMake compares to Jam.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at