Hi Rob,
I don't have the same results... Compiling all 544 samples:
Using jalv2.4l ("jal 2.4l (compiled Aug 7 2009)")
$ time sh tools/build/compile.sh
gives
real 19m26.679s
user 16m43.843s
sys 0m55.423s
So 16 minutes actually spent on compilation ("user" row to remove other
processes overhead)
Using jalv24m-beta ("jal 2.4m-beta (compiled Aug 20 2009)")
$ time sh tools/build/compile.sh
gives
real 36m18.497s
user 30m1.173s
sys 1m22.081s
Can you try compiling *all* samples, so we're sure we can compare ?
Cheers,
Seb
2009/11/13 Rob Hamerling <[email protected]>
>
>
> Hi Seb,
>
> Sebastien Lelong wrote:
>
> > jalv2 2.4m-beta is far slower to compile than 2.4l, buildbot produces a
> > timeout, after something like 1200 seconds...
> >
> > Can someone confirm it's slower ?
>
> On the contrary! I have a little script to compile samples. When I run
> this script on my system with 2.4l it takes 106 seconds, with 2.4m only
> 78 seconds to compile 227 samples (all except the blink samples). So in
> my experience 2.4m is significantly faster.
> Note: I ran the script several times after each other without any other
> active applications to eliminate disk caching effects. The times were
> consistent.
>
>
> Regards, Rob.
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL (http://www.robh.nl/)
>
> >
>
--
Sébastien Lelong
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
