From: Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: emerge suggestions
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:13:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1094735638.20750.8.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200409090146.45636.heikowu@ceosg.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1862 bytes --]
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 19:46, Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 8. September 2004 18:43 schrieb Chris White:
> > How are you going to effectively measure the times?
>
> IIRC, there once was a proposal to do this using bash-units. Each product in
> the tree gets assigned a bash unit, which is a floating point number >0 which
> measures how long compilation takes relative to compiling some certain
> version of bash.
Let's assume we'll just use bash-2.05 (or 3.0, doesn't matter).
> Now, all that needs to be done is to measure package compilation and merging
> time, divide by the number of bash units this package has, and you get an
> estimate on the time for a bash unit on this computer. The more packages you
> merge, the finer this number will become by simply averaging it out. Of
> course, this does not take into account changing the LDFLAGS (which should
> make up for the biggest part of different merge times), or CFLAGS (which
> might also change timing by varying optimization levels and swap
> requirement). But, anyway, these numbers don't change anything about the
> underlying unit, which should be to a large extent platform and machine
> independent.
That's pretty much accurate. Another thing that could be done is there
could be a way to "calibrate" the system... essentially, performing a
bash build using the current {C,CXX,LD}FLAGS to get an accurate time.
This measurement could then be used by portage in giving time estimates.
> I don't know when this proposal came up, I read about it on some forum, some
> time ago.
I know that I mentioned it a while back, but it had been said before
that, so I'm not taking credit (or blame ;p) for it.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
Is your power animal a penguin?
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-09 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-08 15:40 [gentoo-dev] emerge suggestions Philippe Trottier
2004-09-08 15:47 ` [gentoo-dev] " Sebastian Bergmann
2004-09-08 16:03 ` Athul Acharya
2004-09-08 16:43 ` Chris White
2004-09-08 23:46 ` Heiko Wundram
2004-09-09 0:03 ` Ned Ludd
2004-09-09 1:01 ` Heiko Wundram
2004-09-09 13:16 ` Chris Gianelloni
2004-09-09 16:32 ` Danny van Dyk
2004-09-10 9:29 ` Marcus D. Hanwell
2004-09-09 0:19 ` Thomas de Grenier de Latour
2004-09-09 1:01 ` Daniel Goller
2004-09-08 20:10 ` Chris White
2004-09-09 5:06 ` Alin Nastac
2004-09-09 13:13 ` Chris Gianelloni [this message]
2004-09-09 2:12 ` Joseph Booker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1094735638.20750.8.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net \
--to=wolf31o2@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox