Hello All,
I know it's me again - I feel like I'm maybe being a pill by now.
But this one is strange, and I'm not sure whether to just accept the
successful compile and move on or be concerned because what I'm
experiencing is possibly a symptom of a major mistake somewhere along
the line.
As the
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
> it takes a while... So running the procedure twice is time
> consuming.. We're talking hours on a new i7 DEL
From: Matijn Woudt
>> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
>> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
>> it takes a while... So running the procedure twice is time
>> consuming.. We're talking hours on a new i7 DELL XPS Studio (Qua
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:49 PM, wrote:
> From: Matijn Woudt
>>> So - Should I be worried? Does anyone have a clue how that could happen?
>>> Does Anyone want to see the Script
>>> that I run TWICE (and it has all the clean up etc and source code
>>> un-tarring)?
>>>
>>> Any help is always apprec
Matijn Woudt wrote:
> Did you read section 4.5 "About SBUs"?[1]. It says that average
> compile time is measured depending on how long it took you to compile
> the very first package. GCC in chapter 6 (6.17) says: "Approximate
> build time: 47 SBU", so if your binutils package took 10 minutes, you
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 03:09:49PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Even my old 2005 P4 does binutils in 135 seconds.
>
For LFS-7.0 building itself, my 2.4GHz athlon64 took 150 seconds
(with a 1rpm drive and not using cpufreq, the bios is too crap),
my 2.2GHz version (7200rpm, and ondemand cpuf
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
> it takes a while... So running the procedure twice is time
> consuming.. We're talkin
>>On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
>> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
>> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
>> it takes a while... So running the procedure twice is time
>> consuming.. We're
On Jan 10, 2012 9:03 AM, wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
> >> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
> >> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
> >> it takes a while... So running the pro
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:01 +
Firerat wrote:
> I find that if a make fails first time, but completes (or gets further ) on
> second run it is due to some race condition where you have multiple jobs
> and a new job thread is dependent on something that hasn't completed.
> The simplest way aro
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:21:01 +
> Firerat wrote:
>
>> I find that if a make fails first time, but completes (or gets further ) on
>> second run it is due to some race condition where you have multiple jobs
>> and a new job thread is depe
>> I find that if a make fails first time, but completes (or gets further ) on
>> second run it is due to some race condition where you have multiple jobs
>> and a new job thread is dependent on something that hasn't completed.
>> The simplest way around this is to flag the make with -j1
>
>FWIW I'
On 1/10/2012 6:34 AM, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
>>> I find that if a make fails first time, but completes (or gets further ) on
>>> second run it is due to some race condition where you have multiple jobs
>>> and a new job thread is dependent on something that hasn't completed.
>>> The simplest w
>If you wanted to go back to a virtual machine, check EVERY tab on EVERY
>page. Oracle VirtualBox hides a critical option on a separate tab of the
>"System" page. I only found out about it when some of the ISOs I was
>testing wouldn't boot without it checked..
>
>Elly
>
Thank You Elly - I DO Ac
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
>> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
>> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
>> it takes a while... So running the procedure twice is time
>>
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 10:11 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Simon Geard wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 -0700, jasonps...@jegas.com wrote:
> >> Now, I wouldn't care that much except even running on a DEDICATED 32bit
> >> Linux (Slackware 13.37) with MAKEFLAGS set to EIGHT to use all CORES...
> >
consuming.. We're talking hours on a new i7 DELL XPS Studio (Quad Core
with hyper-threading - its like having EIGHT CPU)
>>>
>>> Is 'hours' an exaggeration, or is that really what you're seeing? On a
>>> modern machine like that, the gcc build should be something like five
>>> minutes...
17 matches
Mail list logo
