Re: [Caml-list] Accelerating compilation

[Francois Berenger <berenger@riken.jp>]

On 09/07/2013 12:19 AM, Romain Bardou wrote:
> Le 06/09/2013 16:55, Markus Mottl a écrit :
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Romain Bardou <romain.bardou@inria.fr> wrote:
>>> 1) Separate typing and code generation, in ocamlc and in ocamlopt
>>>
>>> For instance, provide an option -typing-only which would mean "only
>>> produce the .cmi but do not produce the .cmo or the .cmx". The compiler
>>> would only need the .cmi of the dependencies, not their .cmo or .cmx.
>>> This would make it possible to have a Makefile target, or an Ocamlbuild
>>> option, to just type.
>>
>> This seems like an interesting suggestion.  Code generation,
>> especially for native code, can be quite expensive.  I do use byte
>> code compilation during development for that reason, which is somewhat
>> faster.
>
> I considered doing that, but my project has some stubs which do not work
> in bytecode for some reason (probably fixable). Also, it would mean that
> I would have to compile both versions, as the program is too slow to be
> used in bytecode, so the bytecode would only be used for quick
> type-checking.
>
>> Note, however, that there is one problem with the approach as
>> suggested: if you have both an .mli and an .ml file, the build system
>> would have to know when to "type" the latter.  In the suggested
>> approach there would be no trace of this action, because the .cmi
>> would come from the .mli file.  We would need to generate a separate
>> dummy file in that case to visibly record the fact that the .ml file
>> unifies with the .cmi file.  Or (see below) write out the typed
>> abstract syntax tree of the .ml file, which would, of course, also
>> have to unify with the .cmi file.
>
> Indeed the build system would need to be tweaked. Another approach would
> be to consider that .cmi files depend on .ml files as well, maybe only
> if an option -just-type is passed. I'm not sure of the implications.
>
>>> Also, provide an option -do-not-retype which would mean "if the .cmi
>>> exists, load it instead of type-checking again". This would allow the
>>> build process to first type-check (using -typing-only) and then generate
>>> the code without type-checking again (using -do-not-retype). Of course
>>> the build system should be very careful to ensure the .cmi is
>>> up-to-date. This option could also help when compiling both in bytecode
>>> and in native code. This option is not necessary to just find errors
>>> quickly, though.
>>
>> The .cmi file does not contain enough information, because it only
>> contains the signature.  You need the typed AST for proper code
>> generation, which might be quite big.  I haven't looked into this, but
>> I wouldn't be surprised if the size of that thing could be so large
>> that you might prefer type checking again over writing to + reloading
>> it from a file.
>
> Ah right I was thinking it contained the whole typed tree for some
> reason, which is indeed not the case.
>
>>> 2) Be able to disable Ocamlbuild's digest mechanism and use dates and
>>> file sizes instead
>>>
>>> If I am not mistaken, this is one of the main reasons why Ocamlbuild is
>>> slower that make. It does help to prevent useless recompilation, but
>>> what good does it make to prevent a useless recompilation once in a
>>> while if it is at the cost of losing a lot of time in all other cases?
>>> I'm sure it is project-dependent though so it should only be an option,
>>> say, -do-not-hash, or -comparison-mode dateandsize.
>>
>> The problem here is that not all Unix-filesystems support sub-second
>> resolution in timestamps.  So if you build a file and change a
>> character in it within one second, the change may go unnoticed, i.e.
>> required recompilation doesn't happen.  That's why hashing provides
>> much stronger guarantees.  But I think this is not a big problem in
>> practice so I'd support such a flag in ocamlbuild.
>>
>>> 3) Parallel compilation in Ocamlbuild
>>>
>>> Of course it would help but it is not easy to implement so I'm just
>>> putting it there to be exhaustive.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are referring to, OCamlBuild does already
>> support parallel builds.
>
> Does it? I actually thought the -j option was ignored.

No no, it is not ignored. It is just a joke option: it is just
here to make you laugh.

> I just did a quick test and I gain about 5 seconds with -j on a 1min15
> build (I had cleaned, recompiled and recleaned before so that caching by
> the file system would not impact the result too much), so it does seem
> to be a *little* faster :)
>
> Cheers,
>