From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Building Guix with Guile 2.1
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:51:17 +0200
Message-ID: <87eg41ppvu.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87fuotl367.fsf@gnu.org> <87vaxpnf11.fsf@T420.taylan>
	<87k2e4e1ay.fsf@igalia.com> <87r38boe8l.fsf@T420.taylan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38802)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bpwLe-0001AD-5M
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:51:27 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bpwLZ-0001Im-Ux
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:51:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87r38boe8l.fsf@T420.taylan> ("Taylan Ulrich
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=5C\=22Bay\=C4\=B1rl\=C4\=B1\=2FKammer\=5C\=22\=22's\?\=
	message of "Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:45:30 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?=
	=?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?= <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hi!

taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") skribis:

> Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed 21 Sep 2016 23:01, taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=
=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer") writes:
>>
>>> By the way, compile time seems to increase greatly with 2.2, to the
>>> point I wondered if it's really compiling in parallel, but it does seem
>>> to as evidenced by top(1).  Maybe package modules could be compiled with
>>> certain optims turned off, since they mostly just consist of package
>>> object definitions and not procedures whose performance would matter.
>>
>> How much?
>
> Running make, then make clean-go, then 'time make', we get:
>
> Guile 2.0:
> real	2m46.405s
> user	6m39.044s
> sys	0m2.140s
>
> Guile 2.2:
> real	31m44.433s
> user	84m32.060s
> sys	0m10.880s

[...]

> Using optim level 1, compilation takes the same amount of time *and* I
> get a segfault at the end.  When re-running make, it finishes by
> compiling only gnu/packages/python.go (indicating that all other .go
> files were compiled successfully on the first run), and this time
> succeeds without a segfault.
>
> Using optim level 0, it seems to hang at gnu/packages/shells.go.  (More
> precisely, I aborted after a total of 118 minutes, most of which was
> spent waiting for shells.go to finish.)

This sounds a bit concerning.  Any idea what=E2=80=99s going on?

I think we should make sure we have a way to build with 2.2 in at most
the same amount of time as with 2.0.  (Easier said than done!  ;-))

Ludo=E2=80=99.