Stuff like this is what keeps me coming back here. Thanks for posting this!
What's hard about using TCMalloc if you're not using bazel? (Not asking to imply that it's not, but because I'm genuinely curious.)
What's hard about using TCMalloc if you're not using bazel? (Not asking to imply that it's not, but because I'm genuinely curious.)
1. Use it as a dynamically linked library. This is not great because you’re taking at a minimum the performance hit of going through the PLT for every call. The forfeited performance is even larger if you compare against statically linking with LTO (i.e. so that you can inline calls to malloc, get the benefit of FDO , etc.). Not to mention all the deployment headaches associated with shared libraries.
2. Painfully manually create a static library. I’ve done this, it’s awful; especially if you want to go the extra mile to capture as much performance as possible and at least get partial LTO (i.e. of TCMalloc independent of your application code, compiling all of TCMalloc’s compilation units together to create a single object file).
When I was at Meta I imported TCMalloc to benchmark against (to highlight areas where we could do better in Jemalloc) by pain-stakingly hand-translating its bazel BUILD files to buck2 because there was legitimately no better option.
As a consequence of being so hard to use outside of Google, TCMalloc has many more unexpected (sometimes problematic) behaviors than Jemalloc when used as a general purpose allocator in other environments (e.g. it basically assumes that you are using a certain set of Linux configuration options [1] and behaves rather poorly if you’re not)
[1] https://google.github.io/tcmalloc/tuning.html#system-level-o...
As I observed when I was at Google: tcmalloc wasn't a dedicated team but a project driven by server performance optimization engineers aiming to improve performance of important internal servers. Extracting it to github.com/google/tcmalloc was complex due to intricate dependencies (https://abseil.io/blog/20200212-tcmalloc ). As internal performance priorities demanded more focus, less time was available for maintaining the CMake build system. Maintaining the repo could at best be described as a community contribution activity.
> Meta’s needs stopped aligning well with those of external uses some time ago, and they are better off doing their own thing.
I think Google's diverged from the external uses even long ago:) (For a long time google3 and gperftools's tcmalloc implementations were so different.)
And if you try to build their libraries from source, that involves downloading tens of gigabytes of sysroots and toolchains and vendored dependencies.
Oh and you probably don't want multiple versions of a library in your binary, so be prepared to use Google's (probably outdated) version of whatever libraries they vendor.
And they make no effort what so ever to distinguish between public header files and their source code, so if you wanna package up their libraries, be prepared to make scripts to extract the headers you need (including headers from vendored dependencies), you can't just copy all of some 'include/' folder.
And their public headers tend to do idiotic stuff like `#include "base/pc.h"`, where that `"base/pc.h"` path is not relative to the file doing the include. So you're gonna have to pollute the include namespace. Make sure not to step on their toes! There's a lot of them.
I have had the misfortune of working with Abseill, their WebRTC library, their gRPC library and their protobuf library, and it's all terrible. For personal projects where I don't have a very, very good reason to use Google code, I try to avoid it like the plague. For professional projects where I've had to use libwebrtc, the only reasonable approach is to silo off libwebrtc into its own binary which only deals with WebRTC, typically with a line-delimited JSON protocol on stdin/stdout. For things like protobuf/gRPC where that hasn't been possible, you just have to live with the suffering.
..This comment should probably have been a blog post.
And I build all Rust crates (including rustc) with -O3, same as C/C++.
Well, I remember one - very biased - example where I had a look at a class that was especially expensive to compile, like 40 seconds (on a Ryzen 7950X) and maybe 2 GB of RAM. It had under 200 LOC and didn't seem to do anything that's typically expensive to compile... except for the stuff it included. Which also didn't seem to do anything fancy. But transitive includes can snowball if you don't add any "compile firewalls".
That's another matter - just because forward-declares are allowed, doesn't mean they are mandated, but in my experience the reviewers were paying attention to that pretty well.
Counter-exeamples to "~all includes": https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:thi..., https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:thi..., https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:thi....
I picked couple random headers from the directory where I've contributed the most to blink, and from what I'm seeing, most of the classes that could be forward-declared, were. I have not looked at .cc files given that those tend to need to see the declaration (except when it's unused, but then why have a forward-decl at all?) or the compiler would complain about access into incomplete type.
> Well, I remember one - very biased - example where I had a look at a class that was especially expensive to compile, like 40 seconds (on a Ryzen 7950X) and maybe 2 GB of RAM. It had under 200 LOC and didn't seem to do anything that's typically expensive to compile... except for the stuff it included.
Maybe the stuff was actually being compiled because of some member in a class (so it was actually expensive to compile). Or maybe you stumbled upon a place where folks weren't paying attention. Hard to say without a concrete example. The "compile firewall" was added pretty recently I think, but I don't know if it's going to block anything from landing.
Edit: formatting (switched bulleted list into comma-separated because clearly I don't know how to format it).
And the include graph analysis: https://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-cl...
The annotated red dots correspond to the last time Chrome developers did a big push to prune the include graph to optimize build time. It was effective, but there was push back. C++ developers just want magic, they don't want to think about dependency management, and it's hard to blame them. But, at the end of the day, builds scale with sources times dependencies, and if you aren't disciplined, you can expect superlinear build times.
110 CPU hours for a build. (Fortunately, it seems to be a little over half that for my CPU. "Cloud CPUs" are kinda slow.)
I picked the 5001st largest file with includes. It's zoom_view_controller.cc, 140 lines in the .cc file, size with includes: 19.5 MB.
Initially I picked the 5000th largest file with includes, but for devtools_target_ui.cc, I see a bit more legitimacy for having lots of includes. It has 384 "own" lines in he .cc file and, of course, also about 19.5 MB size with includes.
A C++20 source file including some standard library headers easily bloats to a little under 1 MB IIRC, and that's already kind of unreasonable. 20x of that is very unreasonable.
I don't think that I need to tell anyone on the Chrome team how to improve performance in software: you measure and then you grab the dumb low-hanging fruit first. From these results, it doesn't seem like anyone is working with the actual goal to improve the situation as long as the guidelines are followed on paper.
> Initially I picked the 5000th largest file with includes, but for devtools_target_ui.cc, I see a bit more legitimacy for having lots of includes. It has 384 "own" lines in he .cc file and, of course, also about 19.5 MB size with includes.
> A C++20 source file including some standard library headers easily bloats to a little under 1 MB IIRC, and that's already kind of unreasonable. 20x of that is very unreasonable.
I think you're not arguing pro-forward-declarations vs anti-forward-declarations here though - it sounds more like an argument for more granular header/source files? In .cc file, each and every include should be necessary for the file to compile (although looking at your example, bind.h seems to be unused and could be removed - looks like the file was refactored and the includes weren't cleaned up).
With that said, in the corresponding zoom_view_controller.h, the tab_interface.h include looks to be unnecessary so you did find one good example. :)
> Oh and you probably don't want multiple versions of a library in your binary, so be prepared to use Google's (probably outdated) version of whatever libraries they vendor.
This is the only complaint I can relate to. Sometimes they lag on rolling dependencies forward. Not so infrequently there are minor (or not so minor) issues when I try to do so myself and I don't want to waste time patching my dependencies up so I get stuck for a while until they get around to it. That said, usually rolling forward works without issue.
> if you try to build their libraries from source, that involves downloading tens of gigabytes of sysroots and toolchains and vendored dependencies.
Out of curiosity which project did you run into this with? That said, isn't the only alternative for them moving to something like nix? Otherwise how do you tightly specify the build environment?
> Out of curiosity which project did you run into this with?
Their WebRTC library for the most part, but also the gRPC C++ library. Unlike WebRTC, grpc++ is in most package managers so the need to build it myself is less, but WebRTC is a behemoth and not in any package manager.
> That said, isn't the only alternative for them moving to something like nix? Otherwise how do you tightly specify the build environment?
I don't expect my libraries to tightly specify the build environment. I expect my libraries to conform to my software's build environment, to use versions of other libraries that I provide to it, etc etc. I don't mind that Google builds their application software the way they do, Google Chrome should tightly constrain its build environment if Google wants; but their libraries should fit in to my environment.
I'm wondering, what is your relationship with Google software that you build from source? Are you building their libraries to integrate with your own applications, or do you just build Google's applications from source and use them as-is?
If you are building a single google project they are easy to get up and running. If you are building your own project on top of theirs things get difficult. those library issues will get you.
I don't know about OP, but we have our own in house package manager. If Conan was ready a couple years sooner we would have used that instead.
The counter example is the language Go. The team running Go has put considerable care and attention into making this project welcoming for developers to contribute, while still adhering to Google code contribution requirements. Building for source is straightforward and iirc it’s one of the easier cross compilers to setup.
Install docs: https://go.dev/doc/install/source#bootstrapFromBinaryRelease
Or rather it was the last time I tried.
Upside is (I guess) if I ever want to use grpc in another project the work's already done and it'll just be a matter of copy/paste.
They did, in a different way. The world is used to distinguish by convention, putting them in different directory hierarchy (src/, include/). google3 depends on the build system to do so, "which header file is public" is documented in BUILD files. You are then required to use their build system to grasp the difference :(
> And their public headers tend to do idiotic stuff like `#include "base/pc.h"`, where that `"base/pc.h"` path is not relative to the file doing the include.
I have to disagree on this one. Relying on relative include paths suck. Just having one `-I/project/root` is the way to go.
Oh to be clear, I'm not saying that they should've used relative includes. I'm complaining that they don't put their includes in their own namespace. If public headers were in a folder called `include/webrtc` as is the typical convention, and they all contained `#include <webrtc/base/pc.h>` or `#include "webrtc/base/pc.h"` I would've had no problem. But as it is, WebRTC's headers are in include paths which it's really difficult to avoid colliding with. You'll cause collisions if your project has a source directory called `api`, or `pc`, or `net`, or `media`, or a whole host of other common names.
Now I'm curious why grpc, webrtc and some other Chromium repos were set up like this. Google projects which started in google3 and later exported as an open source project don't have this defect, for example tensorflow, abseil etc. They all had a top-level directory containing all their codes so it becomes `#include "tensorflow/...`.
Feels like a weird collision of coding style and starting a project outside of their monorepo
> I have to disagree on this one.
The double-quotes literally mean "this dependency is relative to the current file". If you want to depend on a -I, then signal that by using angle brackets.
I would be surprised if I read some project's code where angle brackets are used to include headers from within the same project. I'm not surprised when quotes are used to include code from within the project but relative to the project's root.
So the only reason to use "" instead of <> is when you need that behaviour, because the dependency is relative to the current file.
If you use "" in any other situation, then you are introducing a potential error, because now someone can change the meaning of your code simply by creating a file with a name and location that happens to match your dependency.
(Yes, some compilers have -isystem and -iquote which modify that behaviour, but those options are not standard, and can't be relied upon. I'd strongly advise against their use.)
Thanks again. This is far outside my regular work, but it fascinates me.
The reverse should be much easier, which was the point of the post. Pointing it out as a capability (translation of build systems) that is handled well, is, well, informative. The future isn’t evenly distributed and people aren’t always aware of capabilities, even on HN
(I managed to avoid infecting my project with boringSSL)