h.
> If your code has lots of __TIME__s, you're screwed anyway. :)
>
Right!
> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Anders Furuhed
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> check_for_temporal_macros could stop searching if both macros have been
>> found?
>> I cannot tell if d
6 x)
> With ccache, preprocessor mode, cache hit:0.86 s ( 24.25 %) ( 4.12 x)
> With ccache, direct mode, cache miss: 4.15 s (117.55 %) ( 0.85 x)
> With ccache, direct mode, cache hit: 0.09 s ( 2.47 %) (40.43 x)
>
> * Speedup: = .15 / .09 = 1.7x
> _
fault, unless I find a way to get more testers. :-)
> (Opinions are welcome, as usual.)
>
> -- Joel
Joel, we've been using the 3.0pre0 release from day one, in a setup where a
dirty dozen plus some droids share a cache.
All defaults, CCACHE_PREFIX=distcc.
I have
Enno Rehling wrote:
> Anders Furuhed wrote:
>
>> Hi Enno,
>>
>> you get these misses only if different hosts are used?
>> In that case, have you verified that the same compiler (its size and
>> modification time) is used on the separate machines?
>
&g
eprocessed output.
The timestamp of the source code does not matter at all.
Don't give up, ccache and distcc are wonderful :)
Regards,
Anders Furuhed
I was just about to start using ccache with distcc and didn't know the best way
to go about, only to discover a just-in-time release that makes it easy! Thanks!
Last week we started to use the Intel compiler in parallel with gcc. The Intel
compilers produce a number of cool but unnecessary messa
