From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1285 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2002 17:30:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1262 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2002 17:30:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Nov 2002 17:30:37 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id RAA22310; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:30:35 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma021964; Tue, 26 Nov 02 17:30:17 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27247; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:30:16 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gAQHUGQ24383; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:30:16 GMT Message-Id: <200211261730.gAQHUGQ24383@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Andrew Cagney cc: Richard Earnshaw , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: revamped gdb_mbuild.sh In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:50:06 EST." <3DE3982E.2070605@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:30:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00653.txt.bz2 > > > How about -c -j ? Ie x configures in parallel & y make jobs in > > parallel? > > In that script, a mindless implementation would result in: > > -c 2 -j 2 > > creating two tasks (-c 2), each running 'make -j 2' (for jobs at the max). > > Is that your intent? Or, as I suspect, try to sustain two configures > and a single 'make -j 2'. > > Andrew > > Yep, it would mean that in my case you could effectively run -c 1 -j 10 and get fast builds with only the configures dropping down to single threaded (which would get most of the parallelism with the least transient disk space use) -- or have -c 2 -j 5 for a bit more configure parallelism with less make parallelism. It would be a trade off that could be made by each user, and the load would be the product of the two. R.