> Emotive terminology like "ludicrous" doesn't encourage a constructive response. You're right. I don't feel in English so it may be too strong or even not to the point. >> Here is [a] slightly improved test script[.] >... yet I didn't see one. Script is here: lists.gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-make/2025-06/msg00029.html Just change sleep$((j)) to 1: ~~~ 42c42 < sleep $((j)) --- > sleep 1 ~~~ > Perhaps you've constrained your thinking to the traditional use of Make to build C programs on a single computer. You're right. That's why I said some heuristics is appropriate. Maybe that jobs=$((`nproc` * 2)) is better that just x1.0, or x1.0+2. Regards
- Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Autodetect processing units with -j Paul Smith
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j Martin Dorey
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j Paul Smith
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units wit... Paul Smith
- Re: Autodetect processing units wit... Collin Funk
- Re: Autodetect processing units... Paul Smith
- Re: Autodetect processing units... Collin Funk
- Re: Re: Autodetect -j (what is MAKEFLAGS?) wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units with -j wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units wit... Paul Smith
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing units... wrotycz
- Re: Re: Autodetect processing u... Paul Smith