On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:10, Oswald Buddenhagen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:00:07AM +1200, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > At the 20 jobs mark, cmake start to stagnate, whereas qbs still make > > use of parallelism, at the 30 jobs mark, cmake completely stopped > > reducing overall build time, whereas qbs start to stagnate. At the 40 > > jobs mark, both systems are stale. > > > that means that qbs creates a build graph with fewer bottlenecks. cmake > certainly could do that with relatively little effort as well, at the > likely cost of slightly increased null rebuild times (due to the graph > being bigger). > > some suggestions for making a diagram where the interesting stuff isn't > crammed into a narrow strip at the bottom: > - a logarithmic job count axis > - build speed per job vs. job count > - cpu utilization per core vs. job count > - <your idea here>
You're on your own, you're trying to proof something everyone know your're wrong. you have to spend enregy, not us. > > _______________________________________________ > Qbs mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/qbs _______________________________________________ Qbs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/qbs
