Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread H. J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 03:37:22PM -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 14:59 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 01/12/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 14:59 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 14:59 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yest

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:06 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > > > > > Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get: > > > > > > > > tree PTA :1135.48 (88%) usr

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays > > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigati

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays > > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigati

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays > > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++ > > compilation timed are through the roof.

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++ compilation timed are through the roof. 10 hours? Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get:

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 10:56 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 10:40 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays > > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++ > > compilation timed are through the r

Re: mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 10:40 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++ > compilation timed are through the roof. > > Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get: >

mainline slowdown

2006-12-01 Thread Andrew MacLeod
My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++ compilation timed are through the roof. Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get: tree PTA :1135.48 (88%) usr 5.47 (55%) sys1168.23 (85