sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...
- From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
- To: Phil The Great <cerise AT deepthought.armory.com>
- Cc: Spencer Ogden <spencero AT mail.utexas.edu>, SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...
- Date: 10 Aug 2002 21:23:05 -0400
Ummm... well... actualy the answer is it depends. The main question that
has to be answered is where and when is the bottleneck? And is it worth
the overhead?
In the case of compiling sources, I've heard varying answers. Some say
that it speeds things up to run make with -j 2 on single processors,
some say that's total baloney. Personaly, I don't know, and don't
particularly care. But choice is good and you'll have a chance to find
out for yourself in a few weeks.
On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 20:59, Phil The Great wrote:
> Absolutely. Parallel algorithms often work better than the traditional
> serial algorithms on uniprocessors. A cursory reading of how to properly
> use threads is an excellent way to acquaint one's self with the whys and
> hows.
>
> Great to hear about the parallel feature 8) I may consider an early
> upgrade to the newest available sorcery.
>
> -Phil/CERisE
>
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Spencer Ogden wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason that a uniproccessor syste would benfit from
> > parrallel
> > compilation. It does't seem like one compilation processes has any
> > trouple
> > using 100% CPU...
> >
> >
> > Spencer
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
-----------------
PGP public key at
http://wwwkeys.ch.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x92B5D3F1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[SM-Discuss] So much time, so little to do. Hold it. Scratch That. Reverse it. OK.,
Ryan Abrams, 08/10/2002
-
[SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Phil The Great, 08/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Spencer Ogden, 08/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Phil The Great, 08/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Dufflebunk, 08/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already..., Phil The Great, 08/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already..., Julian v. Bock, 08/12/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Dufflebunk, 08/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Phil The Great, 08/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already..., Dufflebunk, 08/10/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Spencer Ogden, 08/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] So much time, so little to do. Hold it. Scratch That. Reverse it. OK., Jason Flatt, 08/16/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] So much time, so little to do. Hold it. Scratch That. Reverse it. OK., Jon Svendsen, 08/16/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] So much time, so little to do. Hold it. Scratch That. Reverse it. OK.,
Chris Brien, 08/10/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] So much time, so little to do. Hold it. Scratch That. Reverse it. OK., Ryan Abrams, 08/10/2002
-
[SM-Discuss] Probably taken care of already...,
Phil The Great, 08/10/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.