From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Qwa59-0008B1-6K for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:34:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 698D421C16E; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82AA6E05E8 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 13:33:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxd23 with SMTP id 23so2089502fxd.40 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:33:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qdpk+7vsbJMybLDH0zTujhZN/NuiBfUP/d2hv7efHbo=; b=N7QXrDuuuc8SjAnsIDfSmFj6mxpgSMJ1JEA1hlft+GF61VD7s/gB3fQfjGy3FeFNRR jJZl5We7BU4sg3HzpwAobjUfW1YYf1vQK1BycjbOJNwdxevmArgtCaqXmQzPQJTHlvXX fvFF5QcTnhAyjnblJbmOIHR4Bo11uw+Dpw3h0= 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 Received: by 10.223.55.219 with SMTP id v27mr9268222fag.2.1314279232386; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.105.145 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E564B3D.4050901@gmail.com> References: <4E564B3D.4050901@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:33:52 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Problems with MAKEOPTS -j From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e2d4165ec330d5dc642784b1a7ffa106 On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Dale wrote: > Michael Mol wrote: >> >> Sometimes. My understanding is that it comes from packages which are >> badly constructed, and can't reliably handle parallel builds. I'm told >> that these cases are bugs and should be reported. Sometimes, if I >> watch build output fly by, I'll even see something like >> >> make -j10 -j1 (some target name) >> >> where a maintainer decided to put an overriding -j1 after MAKEOPTS. >> >> >> About two years ago, I found that, on my system (quad-core AMD Phenom >> 9650), -j8 resulted in the fastest build time, as measured by building >> ffmpeg.[1] Currently, I'm running -j10, and that's because I've been >> using distcc to pass a couple compile tasks off to other systems. >> (Though with the box I was deferring to scrapped for parts, I'll drop >> this down to -j8 again) >> >> [1] Tested by building in tmpfs. You can find my data here: >> >> http://multimedia.cx/eggs/ffmpeg-and-multiple-build-threads/#comment-150= 325 >> >> > > This is interesting. =C2=A0I changed mine to j8 too. =C2=A0See how this w= orks. =C2=A0CPUs > are so fast nowadays, they can do a lot pretty fast. =C2=A0I'm trying to = imagine > 10 years from now. =C2=A0O_O I imagine there's a *lot* of money to be made researching AST optimization and simplification transform searches as delegated to GPUs. I don't imagine it'll speed up compiling much, but I do imagine the resulting optimized programs will run far faster. Especially if there's a trend toward declarative programming languages. (I wonder if there's a Prolog implementation that dispatches work to OpenCL. I'm surprised the Mozart/Oz folks haven't dug in that direction yet.) --=20 :wq