HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
yrnkrn
zapcc
C++2018–2025
yrnkrn / zapcc

zapcc

zapcc is a caching C++ compiler based on clang, designed to perform faster compilations

10Distinct people
13Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
1.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

zapcc is a caching C++ compiler based on clang, designed to perform faster compilations

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year13 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-06-17 13:43:27 UTC to 2025-09-07 18:58:46 UTC.

012342018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments20212022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404

What Hacker News says

13 sources
> The sensible way to speed up compilation 5x was implemented almost 10 years ago, worked amazingly well, and was completely ignored. I don't expect progress from the standards committees. Here it is if you're interested: https://github.com/yrnkrn/zapcc Tools like ccache have been around for over two decades, and all you need to do to onboard them is to install the executable and set an environment flag. What value do you think something like zapcc brings that tools like ccache haven't been providing already? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ccache
In What to do with C++ modules?
> The sensible way to speed up compilation 5x was implemented almost 10 years ago, worked amazingly well, and was completely ignored. I don't expect progress from the standards committees. Here it is if you're interested: https://github.com/yrnkrn/zapcc Of course it was completely ignored. Did you expect the standards committee to enforce caching in compilers? That's just not its job. > The next major advance to be completely ignored by standards committees will be the 100% memory safe C/C++ compiler, which is also implemented and works amazingly well: https://github.com/pizlonator/fil-c Again—do you expect the standards committee to enforce usage of this compiler or what? The standards commitee doesn't "standardize" compilers...
In What to do with C++ modules?
The sensible way to speed up compilation 5x was implemented almost 10 years ago, worked amazingly well, and was completely ignored. I don't expect progress from the standards committees. Here it is if you're interested: https://github.com/yrnkrn/zapcc The next major advance to be completely ignored by standards committees will be the 100% memory safe C/C++ compiler, which is also implemented and works amazingly well: https://github.com/pizlonator/fil-c
In What to do with C++ modules?
The reason compilation time is a problem is that compiler architecture is stuck in the 1970s, at least for systems programming languages. Compilers make you wait while they repeat the same work over and over again, thousands of times. Trillions, if you count the work globally. How many times has <vector> been parsed over the years? In a world where compiler architecture had actually advanced, you would download a precompiled binary alongside the source, identical to what you would have produced with a clean build, and that binary would be updated incrementally as you type code. If you made a change affecting a large part of the binary that couldn't be applied immediately, JIT techniques would be used to allow you to run and test the program anyway before it finished compiling. There is no fundamental reason why anyone should ever have to
Read the rest
wait for a compiler. And if you didn't have to wait, then it would free the compiler to spend potentially much more time doing optimizations, actually improving the final binary. The zapcc project shows a bit of the potential for improvement in build times, though it's just scratching the surface. https://github.com/yrnkrn/zapcc
In What Is the Minimal Set of Optimizations Needed for Zero-Cost Abstraction?
There are so many tools to parallelize compilation, but comparatively little effort has gone into reducing the vast amounts of redundant work that compilers do. A staggeringly large percentage of compilation time is simply wasted duplicating work that was already done hundreds of times over. Tools like ccache are really primitive compared to what is possible. Change one bit in a header file and you have to recompile your whole project, even if the output ends up being bit-identical. Zapcc[1] is more advanced, but still far from ideal. What I really want is a compiler that can incrementally update the binary as I type code, and can start from a snapshot that I download from someone else so that nobody ever needs to do a full recompile. It would require a radically different compiler infrastructure, but I don't see any reason why it would b
Read the rest
In Parallel GCC: a research project aiming to parallelize a real-world compiler

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.