On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:05:34PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:47:54PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 6/2/10 8:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:36:58PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wr
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:47:54PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/2/10 8:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:36:58PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> > On 6/2/10 8:26 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 201
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/10 8:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:36:58PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> On 6/2/10 8:26 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:04:20PM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
On 6/2/10 7:55 PM, Jack Howarth
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:36:58PM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/2/10 8:26 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:04:20PM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> > On 6/2/10 7:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> One possible workaro
On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Bill,
> What happens if you change...
>
> make -j $num_cpu
>
> ...to...
>
> nice -n -20 make -j $num_cpu
Previous re-build is still re-building...
--
ThinkGeek an
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 05:10:28PM -0700, William G. Scott wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
>
> > So if GCC's build is not repeatably compatible with -jN, then it
> > should probably not be doing it by default. :P
>
> Anything to speed this build up is delightful.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/10 8:26 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:04:20PM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> On 6/2/10 7:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
One possible workaround might be to change gcc45.info
to reduce the number of parallel builds s
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 08:04:20PM -0400, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 6/2/10 7:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > One possible workaround might be to change gcc45.info
> > to reduce the number of parallel builds so that the
> > load sensitivity is re
On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> On 6/2/10 8:10 PM, William G. Scott wrote:
>> Anything to speed this build up is delightful.
>
> Well sure, but not knowing if it's going to fail 10 hours into it is
> not so delightful. ;)
Which is why it would be ever-so-cool if fink were t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/10 8:10 PM, William G. Scott wrote:
> Anything to speed this build up is delightful.
Well sure, but not knowing if it's going to fail 10 hours into it is
not so delightful. ;)
- --
Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick a.k.a. Raccoon Fink
Fink, K
On Jun 2, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
> So if GCC's build is not repeatably compatible with -jN, then it
> should probably not be doing it by default. :P
Anything to speed this build up is delightful.
Perhaps the best compromise is a conditional test, i.e.,
if [[ $(sysctl -n hw.nc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/10 7:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> One possible workaround might be to change gcc45.info
> to reduce the number of parallel builds so that the
> load sensitivity is reduced. So instead of using...
>
> num_cpu=$(echo `sysctl -n hw.ncpu`)
> mak
Ok, if this build fails, I will give that a try...
On Jun 2, 2010, at 4:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> One possible workaround might be to change gcc45.info
> to reduce the number of parallel builds so that the
> load sensitivity is reduced. So instead of using...
>
> num_cpu=$(echo `sysctl -n h
One possible workaround might be to change gcc45.info
to reduce the number of parallel builds so that the
load sensitivity is reduced. So instead of using...
num_cpu=$(echo `sysctl -n hw.ncpu`)
make -j $num_cpu
we would reduce num_cpu by one if greater
than one so that the build is either ser
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 02:56:24PM -0700, William G. Scott wrote:
> This is happening on two different up-to-date 10.6 64-bit fink
> installations...
>
> rm -f stage_current
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/2/10 5:56 PM, William G. Scott wrote:
> This is happening on two different up-to-date 10.6 64-bit fink
> installations...
>
> rm -f stage_current
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o d
This is happening on two different up-to-date 10.6 64-bit fink installations...
rm -f stage_current
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1obj-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1objplus-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap compa
17 matches
Mail list logo
