https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard ---
(In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #9)
> > It is definitely noticeable for me. And I have seen much longer build times
> > on some non-x86_64 arches.
> Effe
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #10 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #9)
> It is definitely noticeable for me. And I have seen much longer build times
> on some non-x86_64 arches.
Effectively this gives more difference than my measuremen
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard ---
Here are the timings on two of my machines (all on fresh checkouts)
= Intel Core i7-10850H
./autogen.sh && ./configure && time make -j8
real0m3.100s
user0m5.273s
sys 0m4.253s
./autogen.sh && ./configu
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #8 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #7)
> The reproduction instructions you used seem mixed. If you compile with
> `make` (implicit -j1), then it's essentially the same, as GCC won't
> parallelise.
>
> If you
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #7 from Sam James ---
The reproduction instructions you used seem mixed. If you compile with `make`
(implicit -j1), then it's essentially the same, as GCC won't parallelise.
If you run with `make -jN`, then GCC will automatically use the jo
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #6 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
Note that I did at work some trials of building with and without lto, with
lto-partition=one and with the default lto partitioning,
with gcc (GCC) 12.3.1
on AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX 32-Cores
Red Hat E
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jsew...@acm.org |m...@klomp.org
Status|CONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #3 from Philippe Waroquiers ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #2)
> I agree with Sam that using the default partitioning algorithm seems better
> than forcing one.
> Philippe, any comments?
Looking at the comments in configure.ac,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
Mark Wielaard changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@klomp.org,
|
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490651
--- Comment #1 from Sam James ---
Subject: [PATCH] configure: drop -flto-partition=one
For me, -flto-partition=one takes ~35m to build + test, while the default
(which is 'balanced') takes ~5m.
The reason that -flto-partition=one is slower is because
11 matches
Mail list logo
