From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1FB5138CCC for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 19:42:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A01CE086C; Mon, 4 May 2015 19:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7531E0850 for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 19:42:24 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFxL4T/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBOhwoCwshExIPBSU3iACiEYwAIRQQCAICAh0Dgz4DPBaCO2MEjVWHYYVtiECEWA X-IPAS-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFxL4T/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBOhwoCwshExIPBSU3iACiEYwAIRQQCAICAh0Dgz4DPBaCO2MEjVWHYYVtiECEWA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,557,1422939600"; d="scan'208";a="118232586" Received: from 69-196-190-19.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.196.190.19]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 04 May 2015 15:42:23 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 May 2015 15:41:54 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 15:41:54 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Difference between "normal distcc" and "distcc with pump"? Message-ID: <20150504194154.GA23730@waltdnes.org> References: <20150503011001.GA30510@waltdnes.org> <20150504035908.GA1014@waltdnes.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: 90a08457-7195-433f-94a1-e12d84060eae X-Archives-Hash: 9dfb08c1ee07b26543975b44f943a85b On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:29:34AM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > All you need to do is create scripts on the host with the exact > same names and have them execute the compiler that you want with > the options you want (I just have it execute the 64bit compiler with > -m32). Then make sure that distccd (on host) finds them before the > actual compiler by putting it in the PATH environment variable before > anything else. Much to my surprise, adding "-m32" to the client's CFLAGS (and therefore also CXXFLAGS) results in seamonkey building properly. I tried it out on the same video, and cpu load "only" climbs to 2.5 versus 2.75 with seamonkey-bin. The build took 1hr and 43 minutes on the Core 2 Duo host, versus 14 hours doing it on the Atom. Why is seamonkey the only program (so far for me) that needs "-m32"? Would it need "-m64" if it was being cross-compiled on a 32-bit host system for 64-bit client? Is there a wiki that we can contribute this info to? -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications