> 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://li
On Thu, 2025-06-26 at 19:21 +0200, wrotycz wrote:
> > > There are plenty of scenarios where using more jobs than
> > > processor threads results in faster builds: it all depends
>
> You say that because you have tested it or because you believe it?
> I have tested it, But let's bust this ludicrous
> But let's bust this ludicrous idea and show us a test that disproves me
Emotive terminology like "ludicrous" doesn't encourage a constructive response.
If I understand correctly, I think you're describing your own proposal with
that term, as a rhetorical device. It wasn't ludicrous and Paul
Mentioned script.
#!/bin/sh
#URL=http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/make/make-4.4.1.tar.gz # 34 .o files
#URL=https://mirrors.dotsrc.org/gnu/make/make-4.4.1.tar.gz
URL=https://mirrors.dotsrc.org/gnu/bash/bash-5.2.tar.gz # 193
#URL=https://mirrors.dotsrc.org/gnu/coreutils/coreutils-9.5.tar.gz # ~1859 .c
#URL=h
> There are plenty of scenarios where using more jobs than processor threads
results in faster builds: it all depends You say that because you have tested
it or because you believe it? I have tested it, But let's bust this
ludicrous idea and show us a test that disproves me. Here is slightly
