Eric Melski wrote:
ElectricAccelerator doesn't factor runtimes into scheduling decisions,
although we have talked about doing so in the past. I spent some time
investigating the possibility, most recently a couple years ago. ...
I ran the simulation on a variety of real-world builds.
...
I
Tim Murphy wrote:
Hi,
I'm nobody official. I have seen Electric Accelerator using history
files which may be doing something a bit like this.
...
So I, personally, want something that learns. I would like to be able
to store the learned information into source control and use it as the
basis
2010/1/4 Eric Melski :
>
> Hi Tim!
>
> ElectricAccelerator doesn't factor runtimes into scheduling decisions,
> although we have talked about doing so in the past. I spent some time
> investigating the possibility, most recently a couple years ago. What I did
> was tweak the Simulator report in E
Tim Murphy wrote:
Hi,
I'm nobody official. I have seen Electric Accelerator using history
files which may be doing something a bit like this.
...
So I, personally, want something that learns. I would like to be able
to store the learned information into source control and use it as the
basis
Tim Murphy wrote:
Hi,
I'm nobody official. I have seen Electric Accelerator using history
files which may be doing something a bit like this.
Personally I don't like the idea of priorities very much. Large
builds that I have done do have big targets but since we are building
5000 of the same
On 12/25/2009 4:36 PM, Philip Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
You can already completely control the order in which targets are
invoked, even when using -j.
At all times, make will try to build prerequisites starting with the
first one in the prerequisite
On 12/24/2009 7:16 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
You can already completely control the order in which targets are
invoked, even when using -j.
At all times, make will try to build prerequisites starting with the
first one in the prerequisite list, and continuing in order to the last
one in the list.
On 12/24/2009 2:37 AM, Tim Murphy wrote:
Personally I don't like the idea of priorities very much. Large
builds that I have done do have big targets but since we are building
5000 of the same kind of target (using a macro to define a generic
template and $eval to instantiate it for each specific
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 01:08 -0800, tom honermann wrote:
>> There are many valid orders in which the targets can be built. When make
>> is invoked with the parallel execution (-j) option, the order in which the
>> non-dependent targets are sched
On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 01:08 -0800, tom honermann wrote:
> There are many valid orders in which the targets can be built. When make
> is invoked with the parallel execution (-j) option, the order in which the
> non-dependent targets are scheduled has a significant impact on the total
> run time.
Y
Hi,
I'm nobody official. I have seen Electric Accelerator using history
files which may be doing something a bit like this.
Personally I don't like the idea of priorities very much. Large
builds that I have done do have big targets but since we are building
5000 of the same kind of target (usin
I'm working on optimizing our GNU make based build system to reduce
build times. Consider the
following dependencies with these run times for each target:
A: # 3 minutes
B: C D # 1 minutes
C: # 1 minutes
D: # 1 minutes
E: # 6 minutes
There are many vali
12 matches
Mail list logo
