[gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

On 2017-12-06 16:07, Wols Lists wrote: > The contents of /var/tmp are expected to survive a system crash, as that > is where vi, emacs, libreoffice et al are expected to store their > recovery logs. The case of vi has recently been discussed extensively on oss-security :-P As for emacs, that's

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

On 28 November 2017 11:07:58 GMT+01:00, Raffaele Belardi wrote: >Raffaele Belardi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have >the impression that >> most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 or 3 threads. I'm >aware

[gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

Raffaele Belardi wrote: > Hi, > > rebuilding system and world with gcc-7.2.0 on a 6-core AMD CPU I have the > impression that > most of the ebuilds limit parallel builds to 1, 2 or 3 threads. I'm aware it > is only an > impression, I did not spend the night monitoring the process, but >

[gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

David Haller wrote: > > Mow is that meson_options.txt > maintained? Automatically or by hand? If the former: yay! No, the former would be bad since it would require an analogue of an "autoreconf" run which is what meson avoids. > If the latter, treat it as non-existant... I

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

Hello, On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Martin Vaeth wrote: >David Haller wrote: >> autotools is _by far_the best both from a users and a packagers view. > >I do not agree. Its main advantage is that it is compatible with >most existing unix systems (but I am already not so sure whether

[gentoo-user] Re: is multi-core really worth it?

David Haller wrote: > autotools is _by far_the best both from a users and a packagers view. I do not agree. Its main advantage is that it is compatible with most existing unix systems (but I am already not so sure whether this also holds if you also want to compile for