Hi there,
On 01.04.2014 18:13, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:
I've found posix spawn can be much faster than fork/exec with large
memory processes, so I'd be in favor of this. Not every system has it
though so there would have to be a fallback to fork/exec.
--
Gary Oberbrunner
(sent from my Android)
On Apr 1, 2014 11:52 AM, "Kenny, Jason L" <jason.l.ke...@intel.com
<mailto:jason.l.ke...@intel.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,
I just got a patch to Parts internal at Intel to fix some issues
with subprocess. I find myself sort of surprised by this, and
honestly felt that this seems to be an issue that should be looked
at in Scons as well.
[...]
Does anyone else have input on this? IF this is a good patch, it
seem that we will want to apply it to SCons, for a speed boost.
a few minutes ago I updated the page
http://www.scons.org/wiki/WhySconsIsNotSlow
with my latest results. Check out the bottom of the page, and the repository
http://www.bitbucket.org/dirkbaechle/scons_testresults
for all the results. I'm also talking to Tzvetan Mikov off-list, he
volunteered to write a CPython extension for posix_spawn() to help SCons
out. I'll try to get him subscribed to this list, so the three of you
can talk some more about this, okay?
Best regards,
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
