Thanks to author for doing some solid work in providing data points for modules. For those like me looking for the headline metric, here it is in the conclusion
While the evidence shown above is pretty clear that building a software package as a module provides the claimed benefits in terms of compile time (a reduction by around 10%, see Section 5.1.1) and perhaps better code structure (Section 5.1.4), the data shown in Section 5.1.2 also make clear that the effect on compile time of downstream projects is at best unclear.
So, alas, underwhelming in this iteration and perhaps speaks to 'module-fication' of existing source code (deal.II, dates from the '90s I believe), rather than doing it from scratch. More work might be needed in structuring the source code into modules as I have known good speedup with just pch, forward decls etc. (more than 10%). Good data point and rich analysis, nevertheless.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they could do better if they gave up on doing most of the work programmatically.
One part of me agrees with (both from the paper)
> For example, putting a specific piece of code into the right place in each file (or adding necessary header files, as mentioned in Section 5.2) might take 20-30 seconds per file – but doing this for all 1051 files of deal.II then will take approximately a full day of (extremely boring) work. Similarly, individually annotating every class or function we want to export from a module is not feasible for a project of this size, even if from a conceptual perspective it would perhaps be the right thing to do.
and
> Given the size and scope of the library, it is clear that a whole-sale rewrite – or even just substantial modifications to each of its 652 header and 399 implementation files – is not feasible
but another part knows that spending a few days doing such ‘boring’ copy-paste work like that often has unexpected benefits; you get to know the code better and may discover better ways to organize the code.
Maybe, this project is too large for it, as checking that you didn’t mess up things by building the code and running the test suite simply takes too long, but even if it seems to be, isn’t that a good reason to try and get compile times down, so that working on the project becomes more enjoyable?
Oh, it’s Wolfgang. In computational math, he has a focus on research software that few others are able to do, he (the deal.ii team more generally) got an award for it last SIAMCSE. Generally a great writer, looking forward to reading this.
I would like to see a comparison between modules and precompiled headers. I have a suspicion that using precompiled headers could provide the same build time gains with much less work.
Precompiled headers are generally better for system/3rd-party headers. Module are better than PCHs for headers you own, although in some cases you may be better off not using them at all. (I say these because the benefit depends on the frequency with which you need to recompile them, and the relative coupling etc.) Depending on how heavy each one is in your codebase, and how often you modify global build settings, you may have a different experience. And neither is a substitute for keeping headers lightweight and decoupled.
From my experience, compile times ain't an issue if you pay a little attention. Precompiled header, thoughtful forward declarations, and not abusing templates get you a long way.
We are commonly working with games that come with a custom engine and tooling. Compiling everything from scratch (around 1M lines of modern C++ code) takes about 30-40 seconds on my desktop. Rebuilding 1 source file + linking comes in typically under 2 seconds (w/o LTO). We might get this even lower by introducing unity builds, but there's no need for that right now.
We didn't create this code base ourselves, we are just working with it. I'd assume the original developers payed attention to compile times during development and introduced forward declarations whenever things got out of hand.
My computer is fast, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, code is stored on an NVMe SSD. But there certainly are projects with fewer lines of code that take substantially longer to compile.
The modern cryengine compiles very fast. Their trick is that they have architected everything to go through interfaces that are on very thin headers, and thus their headers end very light and they dont compile the class properties over and over. But its a shame we need to do tricks like this for compile speed as they harm runtime performance.
Because you now need to go through virtual calls on functions that dont really need to be virtual, which means the possible cache miss from loading the virtual function from vtable, and then the impossibility of them being inlined. For example they have a ITexture interface with a function like virtual GetSize(). If it wasnt all through virtuals, that size would just be a vec2 in the class and then its a simple load that gets inlined.
One part of me agrees with (both from the paper)
> For example, putting a specific piece of code into the right place in each file (or adding necessary header files, as mentioned in Section 5.2) might take 20-30 seconds per file – but doing this for all 1051 files of deal.II then will take approximately a full day of (extremely boring) work. Similarly, individually annotating every class or function we want to export from a module is not feasible for a project of this size, even if from a conceptual perspective it would perhaps be the right thing to do.
and
> Given the size and scope of the library, it is clear that a whole-sale rewrite – or even just substantial modifications to each of its 652 header and 399 implementation files – is not feasible
but another part knows that spending a few days doing such ‘boring’ copy-paste work like that often has unexpected benefits; you get to know the code better and may discover better ways to organize the code.
Maybe, this project is too large for it, as checking that you didn’t mess up things by building the code and running the test suite simply takes too long, but even if it seems to be, isn’t that a good reason to try and get compile times down, so that working on the project becomes more enjoyable?
See VC++ devblogs and CppCon/C++Now talks from the team.
Pre-compiled headers have only worked well on Windows, and OS/2 back in the day.
For whatever reason UNIX compilers never had a great implementation of it.
With exception of clang header maps, which is anyway one of the first approaches to C++ modules.
We are commonly working with games that come with a custom engine and tooling. Compiling everything from scratch (around 1M lines of modern C++ code) takes about 30-40 seconds on my desktop. Rebuilding 1 source file + linking comes in typically under 2 seconds (w/o LTO). We might get this even lower by introducing unity builds, but there's no need for that right now.
My computer is fast, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X, code is stored on an NVMe SSD. But there certainly are projects with fewer lines of code that take substantially longer to compile.