From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15686 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2007 09:13:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 15675 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2007 09:13:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from kuber.nabble.com (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:13:01 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Iy1vf-0005ie-IV for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:12:59 -0800 Message-ID: <14042402.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:15:00 -0000 From: mahmoodn To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: reduce compilation times? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: nt_mahmood@yahoo.com References: <13967871.post@talk.nabble.com> <18251.60312.968806.16303@zebedee.pink> <13968885.post@talk.nabble.com> <18251.64592.703080.984824@zebedee.pink> <13969133.post@talk.nabble.com> <18252.8244.983512.911302@zebedee.pink> <13987559.post@talk.nabble.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00435.txt.bz2 >If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are correct and it does not make any >sense. >For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache Seagate drive connected >through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to completely feed the CPU. >However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j makes sense.> >For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your hard drive is any ATA connected >IDE drive, then -j would help, since the CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the >hard drive to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. I test with a core 2 and -j2 worked fine.... But I still do not know why it does not work on p4. Any way.... thanks John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote: > > Hi mahmoodn, > >> I have single core, P4. So I think -j does not make any sense. Is it >> right? > > If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are > correct and it does not make any sense. > > For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache > Seagate drive connected through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to > completely feed the CPU. > > However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j > makes sense. > > For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your > hard drive is any ATA connected IDE drive, then -j would help, since the > CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the hard drive > to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. > > HTH, > --Eljay > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/reduce-compilation-times--tf4880765.html#a14042402 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29303 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2007 11:43:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29200 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2007 11:43:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from kuber.nabble.com (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:43:10 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Iy4Gy-0001J6-Nu for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:43:08 -0800 Message-ID: <14042402.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:33:00 -0000 From: mahmoodn To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: RE: reduce compilation times? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: nt_mahmood@yahoo.com References: <13967871.post@talk.nabble.com> <18251.60312.968806.16303@zebedee.pink> <13968885.post@talk.nabble.com> <18251.64592.703080.984824@zebedee.pink> <13969133.post@talk.nabble.com> <18252.8244.983512.911302@zebedee.pink> <13987559.post@talk.nabble.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20071130133300.Qn80ekwnrF1azX8HbLTyOo0FAG9LAcPtAP103rIRyww@z> >If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are correct and it does not make any >sense. >For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache Seagate drive connected >through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to completely feed the CPU. >However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j makes sense.> >For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your hard drive is any ATA connected >IDE drive, then -j would help, since the CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the >hard drive to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. I test with a core 2 and -j2 worked fine.... But I still do not know why it does not work on p4. Any way.... thank you John (Eljay) Love-Jensen wrote: > > Hi mahmoodn, > >> I have single core, P4. So I think -j does not make any sense. Is it >> right? > > If your hard drive throughput is faster than your CPU, then you are > correct and it does not make any sense. > > For example, if you are using a 25 MHz 68030 and a 15,000 rpm 8 GB cache > Seagate drive connected through SCSI-3, the drive is probably able to > completely feed the CPU. > > However, if your hard drive throughput is slower than your CPU, then -j > makes sense. > > For example, if your CPU is a single core Pentium 4 at 3.6 GHz, and your > hard drive is any ATA connected IDE drive, then -j would help, since the > CPU would have many spare cycles to burn while waiting for the hard drive > to feed it, so it could be busy working on another compiler concurrently. > > HTH, > --Eljay > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/reduce-compilation-times--tf4880765.html#a14042402 Sent from the gcc - Help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.