[distcc] PCH Headers and distcc (again!)
jkp at kirkconsulting.co.uk
Tue May 27 13:26:25 GMT 2008
Good to hear this was as important to someone else as it was to me. I found
that once PCH's were working things compiled a hell of a lot quicker: I was
getting gains in the region of what is touted on the website using two
machines of similar power. I do think this is an important addition
Having read about your solution (which I commend you on) I wonder whether or
not we shouldnt retry patching the PCH's to alllow the checksum test to be
passed on the target compiler. I've read the code and it seems to me we
should be able to reverse engineer that code, but I'm not sure how we can
find out what the correct checksum for each version of GCC would be. I do
think if this could be made to work it would be a lot cleaner, though users
would have to understand that they take a risk if they mix versions of GCC.
They do this anyway at the moment though so I don't see a major difference.
RIght now though would it not be worth incorporating your changes but made
to work for the same version of GCC on each side? That would at least be a
start, and we could look at adding the patching later? Does this need a
fork of the main codeline to get things running? If so, could we think
about using Git and some free hosting like GitHub to allow efforts to be
shared? If the core maintainers are happy to have this work takeplace in
the main repository then fine, but if not (based on the idications you gave)
this could be a way forward.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Sascha Demetrio <saschad at crytek.de> wrote:
> I also spent some time getting PCH to work with distcc and I think I've
> got a fairly complete implementation here. We're running a local compile
> farm with my PCH patch, pretty successful so far. Problem: I still don't
> have an OK from management to release the code :( I'll try to resolve
> this till the end of the week.
> Here's a brief description of what I did and what the results were.
> First of all PCHs can be huge (typically more than 100MB for our code),
> so caching them on the compile server is required. I did that by
> identifying a PCH by its MD5 sum - the PCH name on the server is simply
> (MD5-HEX).h.gch. Files are compiled locally with -fpch-preprocess, the
> distcc client looks for the PCH pragma, computes the MD5 and replaces
> the pragma line with a reference to the MD5-named PCH. After that, I
> added an additional protocol ping-pong, where the server may ask the
> client to send over the PCH, in case it is not already cached on the
> server. That works well when client and server are running the same
> compiler binary.
> The next problem (already mentioned by Jamie) is the PCH binary
> compatibility check. In our case were cross compiling to some target
> platform X, servers are Linux, most clients are Windows machines - so no
> way to get the same compiler binary running on server and client. (I've
> tried a hack that simply patches the checksum in the PCH -> compiler
> crash, even though both compiler binaries are compiled from the same
> source, only for different host platforms).
> My solution is not nice, but works. The client enforces that PCHs are
> compiled on the server (fallback disabled). When creating the
> preprocessed file for the PCH compilation, the option -dD is added and
> all #defines and #undefs are captured. The client creates a local proxy
> PCH file which contains the PCH pragma and _all_ #defines and #undefs
> from the the preprocessed PCH, _except_ for those specified on the
> command line and built-in macros (these can be identified by looking at
> the previous line in the PP output). The proxy PCH file is placed in a
> directory that is scanned for includes before the directory containing
> the original PCH include file. The C++ files are then compiled without
> the -fpch-preprocess option.
> Maybe somebody has a smarter idea of how to handle the PCH binary
> compatibility problem.
> I found that PCH improves the build performance to some degree. However,
> getting this to work in the most general case (where server is platform
> A, client is platform B, target is platform C) is really tricky and
> requires considerable changes to the distcc code base. Even if I can
> make my changes public, I would not be surprised if the distcc
> maintainers vote against it.
> Kind regards,
> Jamie Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > Hi all
> > This topic hasn't be raised for some time, but having spent a whole
> > weekend playing with distcc, only to be massively disappointed by this
> > stumbling block, I think its worth revisting.
> > I spent a couple of days setting up various cross-compilers etc on the
> > boxes I have at home to see if I couldn't get some kind of compiler
> > farm on the go. After much playing around I finally got it all
> > running, but then spent a further day trying to work out why I could
> > not get distcc to improve my compile times at all.
> > In the end the answer turned out to be that I was using PCH headers
> > which are disabled by the flags used to preprocess code by distcc.
> > Bummer. So next I tried to see if I could get the two to play nice
> > together. There is a suggestion in an earlier post that one should
> > use the "-fpch-preprocess" flag to force the inclusion of a special
> > pragma that tells GCC how to use the PCH header. The problem, as also
> > previously noted, is that the flag tells GCC to include the PCH file
> > when dealing with the preprocessed code. Only the PCH header is not
> > on the target machine.
> > I wasn't going to give up there however. I know from reading
> > elsewhere that Apple allow the use of PCH headers in combination with
> > distcc and I wanted to know how. So, after some time spent poring
> > over their modified version of distcc, as well as the GCC code I know
> > They have altered distcc to transfer the PCH headers to the target
> > machine, and then in turn taught GCC how to read the files from
> > special temporary locations. The solution allows you ot get the
> > benefits of PCH headers as well as using distcc.
> > The question I have is whether or not we can find some way to
> > integrate the code that does the transfering, and find some other way
> > to get GCC to read the files? This would be of massive benefit to
> > projects where PCH files are in use already, and the idea of switching
> > away to use distcc does not appeal.
> > The only other snag I've hit is that GCC does some checksumming of the
> > PCH files, working out if they are compiled with the same version,
> > which means you need *exactly* the same binary as the system that
> > compiled it. Again, not ideal but workable for those that need it.
> > Thoughts would be welcome. I spent a long time getting to this point
> > and it seems a shame to let my findings go to waste: most of the code
> > for a fix is already written so it would make sense to use it.
> > --
> > Jamie Kirkpatrick
> > 07818 422311
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed
More information about the distcc