Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] timing compiles

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dufflebunk <dufflebunk AT dufflebunk.homeip.net>
  • To: "\"Jimmy Yen(???)\"" <root AT yhjworks.com>
  • Cc: Jack Bertram <jack AT jbertram.net>, sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] timing compiles
  • Date: 08 Feb 2003 02:47:02 -0500

If something like this is ever implemented, I would suggest that the
times not be included, but to use categories like, "<1min", "<10mins",
"<30mins", "<1h", ">1h". For example tree and several others would fall
into the <1min, and OO would fall into >1h (if there's a src version
yet).

On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 02:43, "Jimmy Yen(???)" wrote:
> It's always a good thing to have a general idea of how long the
> compilation of a spell will take, but I think it could be hard to
> realize locally. How do you time spells that have interactive
> installation scripts (e.g. flash)? What if you change your compile
> settings later? What if you change a part of your hardware configuration
> later? What if you do other things when compiling a spell? And, most
> importantly, what's the point to know the accurate compilation time of a
> spell that you have already cast? The compilation time of the upgraded
> spell will certainly vary.
>
> I think a compilation database becomes most (and maybe only) useful when
> you are compiling a spell which hasn't been cast before, so you want a
> rough idea of how long it's going to take. All of us who have ever cast
> glibc, mozilla, or j2sdk already know very well about how many hours
> they roughly take, and the exact time isn't very important. So I think a
> centralized database stored in the grimoire is a better choice, though
> maintaining it would be costy. We can use a reference machine with a
> reference configuration to compile every spell, so that everyone can
> have a rough idea about the compilation time by comparing the hardware
> configurations of his machine and the reference one *before* casting a
> spell. Because we only need a rough estimation, even a single reference
> machine isn't really needed. Spellwriters can simply include the
> compiation time on their own machines along with their hardware
> configurations (actually, just the CPU model is accurate enough,) and
> that won't be very hard to realize.
>
> haoto
>
> Jack Bertram wrote:
>
> >It's just occurred to me that it would be quite interesting to have an
> >idea (before casting a spell) of how long it's going to take to cast.
> >Now, it seems unrealistic to maintain this centrally since everyone
> >compiles on different machines. However, there's no reason why sorcery
> >couldn't time each compile on a local machine and store the elapsed time
> >in a database. Then I'd have a good idea of how long it took to upgrade
> >a spell:
> >
> >Something like:
> >
> >$ gaze time glibc
> >
> >glibc compile time:
> >version time (s)
> >----------------
> >2.2.6 89241
> >2.3.1 91324
> >
> >Then I could expect a new compile to take just over a day.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >jack
> >_______________________________________________
> >SM-Discuss mailing list
> >SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page