Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 25.12.2012 15:28, schrieb Mattias Gaertner:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:55:41 +0100 (CET)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
[...]
The numbers Martin names (up till 10 times slower, even without
linking) are
the numbers I have in mind too. IMHO denial without tests is unfair.
Maybe the parallelization could be improved?
Yes, this might be a good solution for the future but last time this
topic came up, Martin still wanted to run FPC on some almost 10 years
old machine so parallelization does not help. Another thing would be an
fpc compiler daemon which stays in memory between compilations and keeps
also ppus loaded.
I've got machines which are older than that, but they've almost all got
multiple processors. I can't remember the exact timing, but a Sun
machine with 16x 80MHz chips would build the Linux kernel in a minute or
so, so parallelisation at the make -j level can be a big win.
Obviously that doesn't help if somebody's running native builds on an
obscure development board, or if a multi-CPU/core architecture's got
very poor aggregate I/O performance, or if certain aspects of SMP quite
simply aren't reliable (lack of cache coherence on some MIPS systems).
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
