Just a PSA from one rust developer to another: if you use sccache, take a moment to benchmark a clean build1 of your favorite or current project and verify whether or not having RUSTC_WRAPPER=sccache is doing you any favors.
I’ve been an sccache user almost from the very start, when the Mozilla team first introduced it in the rust discussions on GitHub maybe seven years back or so, probably because of my die-hard belief in the one-and-only ccache earned over long years of saving my considerable time and effort on C++ development projects (life pro-tip: git bisect on large C or C++ projects is a night-and-day difference with versus without ccache). At the same time, I was always painfully aware of just how little sccache actually cached compared to its C++ progenitor, and I was left feeling perpetually discontented ever since learning to query its hit rate stats with sccache -s (something I never needed to do for ccache).
But my blind belief in the value of build accelerators led me to complacency, and I confess that with sccache mostly chugging away without issue in the background, I kind of forgot that I had RUSTC_WRAPPER set at all. But I recently remembered it and in a bout of procrastination, decided to benchmark how much time sccache was actually saving me… and the results were decidedly not great.
sccache does not cache nor speed up incremental builds, and recent versions try to more or less bypass the caching pipeline altogether in an attempt to avoid slowing down incremental builds. ↩
