On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Hochhaus, Andrew
<
ahoc...@samegoal.com> wrote:
> Thanks Nico.
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nico Weber <
tha...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> We used distcc for a short while however, and that worked
>> mostly ok too.
>
> Can you offer any highlights of the problem areas you hit with dictcc
> and clang?
One minor nuisance was that clang suppresses many warnings when they
come from macros, and distcc does expands macros before sending the
file to remote machines (at least if you don't use pump mode) -- this
means you'll get lots of warnings from the remote clang. There's a
thread about this somewhere on cfe-dev.
> What was the major motivation behind developing goma
> instead of the distcc solution?
distcc needs a cluster configuration and a cluster of machines. goma
on the other hand runs sandboxed compiler binaries in google's
datacenters, where thousands of machines are available. I believe
that's the main motivation (but I'm not on the goma team, so that's
just a guess).
Nico