On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 18:13 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 30/07/14 09:59, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/29/2014 09:00 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
Done
r1614472 | aconway | 2014-07-29 15:59:19 -0400 (Tue, 29 Jul 2014) | 2
On 07/29/2014 09:00 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
Done
r1614472 | aconway | 2014-07-29 15:59:19 -0400 (Tue, 29 Jul 2014) | 2
lines
QPID-5941: Set sensible default build type: default is RelWithDebInfo.
On 30/07/14 09:59, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 07/29/2014 09:00 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
Done
r1614472 | aconway | 2014-07-29 15:59:19 -0400 (Tue, 29 Jul 2014) | 2
lines
QPID-5941: Set sensible default build type: default is
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 19:17 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 28/07/14 14:29, Alan Conway wrote:
Based on discussion so far I am inclined to
- make the default build type RelWithDebInfo
- udpate cpp/INSTALL discussion of build types (it does mention
Release/Debug already, I'll add mention
On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 02:46 -0400, Pavel Moravec wrote:
- Original Message -
I think that RelWithDebInfo is more generally useful - it gives you
nearly all the optimisation you want and debugging symbols for when you
screw up!
Works for me. Did some quick benchmarks
On 28/07/14 14:29, Alan Conway wrote:
Based on discussion so far I am inclined to
- make the default build type RelWithDebInfo
- udpate cpp/INSTALL discussion of build types (it does mention
Release/Debug already, I'll add mention of the other types.
We don't have unanimity over Release vs.
- Original Message -
I think that RelWithDebInfo is more generally useful - it gives you
nearly all the optimisation you want and debugging symbols for when you
screw up!
Works for me. Did some quick benchmarks and the perf differences between
Release and RelWithDebInfo are
On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:31 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 24/07/14 13:59, Alan Conway wrote:
Very important point I forgot to mention: are you doing a release
build?
cmake -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
That makes a big difference. It enables optimization flags for the C++
compiler.
On 07/25/2014 03:30 PM, Alan Conway wrote:
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger (and since the default
doesn't set -g anyway that doesn't appear
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger (and since the default
doesn't set -g anyway
Exactly - I agree with Andrew.
On 7/25/14, 10:46 AM, Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions
On 07/25/2014 03:46 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 10:30 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
...
So I vote for making the default build type Release. Someone who finds
performance sucks is more likely to leave without asking questions than
someone who has trouble with their debugger
On 7/25/14, 12:13 PM, Alan Conway acon...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:47 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 25/07/14 15:30, Alan Conway wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:31 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
On 24/07/14 13:59, Alan Conway wrote:
Very important point I forgot to
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 12:13 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:47 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
...
My vote would be to default to the most optimised/operational-quality
I agree with this, but I strongly believe that operational-quality
includes debugging symbols.
Operational
On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
I believe that the person likely to be downloading qpid source is a
developer. It is likely a developer that does not want to become
intimately familiar with debugging Qpid - they just want it to work
without asking questions. But it is a person who may
:45 PM
Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 12:13 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:47 +0100, Fraser Adams wrote:
...
My vote would be to default to the most optimised/operational-quality
I agree
-Original Message-
From: Fraser Adams [mailto:fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:22 PM
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++
broker
On 25/07/14 17:27, Steve Huston wrote:
I believe
Hey 郑勰,
Qpid should definitely be able to achieve at least 200,000 per second,
though it'll depend on the message size and hardware obviously. Check
out the paper linked below:
http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/mrg/Reference_Architecture_MRG_Messaging_Throughput.pdf
That paper has something like
- Original Message -
From: Josh Carlson josh.carl...@kaazing.com
To: users@qpid.apache.org
Cc: Fraser Adams fraser.ad...@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:38:04 PM
Subject: Re: REQEST FEEDBACK Re: How to test the performance quid c++ broker
The only way I'd feel
19 matches
Mail list logo
