Chromium is taking a long time to compile

[Zucca]

It's sad to see the most complicated (and bloated?) programs are web browsers.

I used to say "You can install Linux on that old PC of yours and use it for office programs and web surfing.".

To surf the web one used to need only a light surf board. Nowdays one needs an aircraft carrier.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--

[logrusx]

[logrusx]

Building of Chromium 70.0.3538.67 with file merge limit of 15 on 6 gigs of RAM and 2 cores went well. I remember trying with 25 but it didn't go well. This value depends on RAM, but also varies from build to build. I think Chromium 69 didn't go well with 15, but it's nearly that value for 6 gigs of RAM.

It took like 12-13 hours, but for you that depends on your CPU. Most people have faster CPU's than mine, so I guess everybody will get better compile times with a few exceptions.

If you have 4 gigs of RAM, per core I think it's safely to go for file merge limit of 10 per core or, if you have some spare hours to experiment and don't mind to lose them due to out of memory errors, test values 15 or 20. If the build succeeds, that will spare you at least 10-20% of the time.

Regards,
Georgi

[gnumber9]

On my i7-950, all cores maxed at 100% running around 3075MHz, using up to 8GB at times out of 24GB, makopts at -j8, SSD. Chromium update is now around 4 hours of compile time.

Debating next time to either:
emerge -avuDN @world --exclude=chromium
or to
emerge --depclean chromium

[Marlo]

Hi there,

does anyone know what has changed since version chromium-79.0.3945.74. ? Since then the compilation time has increased drastically.

[zsitvaij]

Upstream dropped support for jumbo-build and it was removed.

[Marlo]

Oh yes, jumbo builds. That’s it.

Thanks zsitvaij,
I remember the many discussions about it.
_________________
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://radio.garden/

[logrusx]

[fedeliallalinea]

[logrusx]

[hariskar]

Betweeen the 2 last compiles the only difference is that in the last one I installed and use ccache. Is the expected difference so big?

[logrusx]

This is the situation with me:

[logrusx]

Unfortunately no luck with 81 either.

These are the ccache statistics prior to starting compilation

[davydm]

[Chiitoo]

[davydm]

[logrusx]

[quote="davydm"][quote="Hu"]

[davydm]

Of course the most major time savings will be in minor updates - the point is that there have been (and will continue to be) many minor updates. If I can save 95% of the build time 80% of the time, that's a win. The argument that ccache isn't worth it is clearly wrong - I could have saved over a day of build time on the last few updates alone. In addition, much of Chromium is 3rd party packages, which often remain stable. So even major version updates are likely to score from ccache - and the next time one comes along, I'll be sure to time and post.

[logrusx]

[Hu]

He already did test it, and has two posts in this thread describing how it was helpful. I am glad to be wrong about this. Given all the other bad things about the Chromium build system, I fully expected that most files would be including something that would defeat the cache, since ccache is quite cautious about what it considers to be an equivalent input.

[davydm]

[davydm]

[jserink]

Hi All:

I left my machine on the other night to emerge chromium-81.0.4044.113, took nearly 6 hours.

The next day my son tried to use my computer for E-Learning for school, he used my computer two days ago worked fine, the new chromium wouldn't play the videos.

So that is that. 6 hours to compile so videos won't play? I don't have time for this.
Am on a i7, SSD, tmpfs and 32G of ram.

Chromium is gone, got rid of it. 6 hour compile times are over the top.

I'll use Brave and Chrome, they work for me.

Onward and forward.

Cheers,
john

[logrusx]

[davydm]