On 08/06/2017 05:05 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 11:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 08/02/2017 11:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
>> So does this perform better than make -j X -l X? I use that with good
>> success.
>>
>> jeff
>
> Sorry for my slow response!
>
> For a short answer, if you ha
On 08/03/2017 05:07 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
>> I'm working on a patch to modify the testsuite to obey the
>> --load-average value if one is passed to make.
> The code seems like a reasonable approach. Love to see numbers and test
> scenarios so t
On 08/03/2017 11:45 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/02/2017 11:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> So does this perform better than make -j X -l X? I use that with good
> success.
>
> jeff
Sorry for my slow response!
For a short answer, if you have 8 CPU cores and you run make -j8 -l8
check then everythin
On Aug 2, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
>
> I'm working on a patch to modify the testsuite to obey the
> --load-average value if one is passed to make.
The code seems like a reasonable approach. Love to see numbers and test
scenarios so that others can tell if you've covered their us
On 08/02/2017 11:34 PM, Daniel Santos wrote:
> I'm working on a patch to modify the testsuite to obey the
> --load-average value if one is passed to make. It seems to work pretty
> well, except for libstdc++ which doesn't load gcc/libs/gcc-defs.exp
> since it defines it's own ${tool}_functions. I
I'm working on a patch to modify the testsuite to obey the
--load-average value if one is passed to make. It seems to work pretty
well, except for libstdc++ which doesn't load gcc/libs/gcc-defs.exp
since it defines it's own ${tool}_functions. I haven't dug too deeply
into libstdc++'s testsuite ye
