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
11 matches
Mail list logo
