10b99c6f55
# Summary Today, Zed uses Mold on Linux, but Wild can be significantly faster. On my machine, Wild is 14% faster at a whole-tree clean build, 20% faster on an incremental build with a minimal change, and makes no measurable effect on runtime performance of tests. However, Wild's page says it's not yet ready for production, so it seems to early to switch for production and CI builds. This PR keeps using Mold in CI and lets developers choose in their own config what linker to use. (The downside of this is that after landing this change, developers will have to do some local config or it will fall back to the default linker which may be slower.) [Wild 0.6 is out, and their announcement has some benchmarks](https://davidlattimore.github.io/posts/2025/09/23/wild-update-0.6.0.html). cc @davidlattimore from Wild, just fyi # Tasks - [x] Measure Wild build, incremental build, and runtime performance in different scenarios - [x] Remove the Linux linker config from `.cargo/config.toml` in the tree - [x] Test rope benchmarks etc - [x] Set the linker to Mold in CI - [x] Add instructions to use Wild or Mold into `linux.md` - [x] Add a script to download Wild - [x] Measure binary size - [x] Recommend Wild from `scripts/linux` # Benchmarks | | wild 0.6 (rust 1.89) | mold 2.37.1 (1.89) | lld (rust 1.90) | wild advantage | | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | | clean workspace build | 176s | 184s | 182s | 5% faster than mold | | nextest run workspace after build | 137s | 142s | 137s | in the noise? | | incremental rebuild | 3.9s | 5.0s | 6.6s | 22% faster than mold | I didn't observe any apparent significant change in runtime performance or binary size, or in the in-tree microbenchmarks. Release Notes: - N/A --------- Co-authored-by: Mateusz Mikuła <oss@mateuszmikula.dev>
5.8 KiB
Executable File
5.8 KiB
Executable File