On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:03:11 AM UTC, Martin R wrote: > > complete from scratch. > > So, a better question is: is there an estimate for how long a complete > build, excluding or including documentation I don't care) should take on my > machine (cpuinfo see above, using MAKE="make -j4"). >
I think it's hard to say, as there are time-consuming tuning procedures ran by NTL (and if you build Atlas, its tuning may take really long). Building gcc is a bottleneck too, so if you avoid it you get quite a speedup. It also depends on the kind of harddisk used (SSD or the "classical" drive, etc), as a lot of building time is reading/writing to disk. The type of filesystem you use would also play a role. On an old Apple laptop (late 2010 AirBook with Core2 Duo CPU) with a similar CPU, only 2-core, not 4-core, building Sage was always very slow, taking a good part of the day. (Faster with Linux than with OSX, although not by much). > > Martin > > Am Montag, 17. Oktober 2016 08:16:22 UTC+2 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: >> >> On 2016-10-16 20:20, 'Martin R' via sage-release wrote: >> > It seems that this made openblas build, thank you. >> > >> > However: the build takes so long that it makes me wonder. Is it >> > possible that it takes much longer to build this release candidate than >> > some beta before? >> >> The build of *what* takes so long? The openblas build? Of an incremental >> Sage build? Of a complete from-scratch Sage build? >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
