Hi Martin, You're right. I made a mistake. I wanted to speak about the fork done for each compilation. I found a comment in the file "Exec.c" (about line 40) about fork:
* @todo On Cygwin, fork() must be emulated and therefore will be * slow. It would be faster to just use their spawn() call, rather * than fork/exec. Is someone working on this ? Thanks, Sebastien. -----Message d'origine----- De: Martin Pool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: lundi 14 février 2005 22:00 À: Perochon Sebastien Cc: distcc@lists.samba.org Objet: Re: [distcc] --no-fork On 14 Feb 2005, Perochon Sebastien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --no-fork > Don't fork children for each connection, to allow attaching gdb. Don't use > this if you don't understand it! You can use it if you want, but it will limit the server to processing only one job at a time. On a single processor machine that may be fine. > Tests have shown that using distcc under cygwin is not as powerful as under > linux mainly because of the use of "fork". What about the use of fork? If the problem is that fork is slow, then using --no-fork should not make much difference because the forking happens only at startup and then every hundred jobs or so. If fork is a problem, it would be more useful to replace the forks which happen for each compilation. Is there a more efficient way to launch tasks in Cygwin? -- Martin __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
