> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed?
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed?
On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
>>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for
On 2018-11-28 6:31 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
>>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
>
> Not sure. The patch will probably
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
>> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
>
> Not sure. The patch will probably
On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing
assembly is always done locally and there
On 2018-11-28 5:38 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
> So what’s your take? Would you think this patch is still needed? Should it
> only be enabled automatically for distcc and not for distcc-pump?
Not sure. The patch will probably slow things down a lot (seeing
assembly is always done locally and there
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the
>> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly.
>
> I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the
>> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly.
>
> I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite
On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the
> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly.
I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be
included in the next version of icecc. And
On 2018-11-14 6:57 p.m., Nadav Amit wrote:
> Eventually, if you get a fix into icecc, we will need to change the
> Makefile, consider the version number and act accordingly.
I got a fix pulled into icecc[1] and it works quite well. It ought to be
included in the next version of icecc. And
On 14/11/18 06:57 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you
> could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I
> suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you).
I agree with this completely.
>
On 14/11/18 06:57 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> As long as the argument was *required* to get distcc to work at all, you
> could expect people would figure out an argument is needed. In this case, I
> suspect nobody will ever know about this argument (except you).
I agree with this completely.
>
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Sent: November 15, 2018 at 1:19:45 AM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada
> , Michal Marek ,
> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H.
> Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing
> list , LKML
> Subject: Re: [PAT
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Sent: November 15, 2018 at 1:19:45 AM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada
> , Michal Marek ,
> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H.
> Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing
> list , LKML
> Subject: Re: [PAT
On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the
> Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected.
> This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options.
>
> What do you say about
On 14/11/18 10:46 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> Actually, we can just figure out whether distcc or icecc are used in the
> Makefile according to the “version”, similarly to the way clang is detected.
> This would neither require new Makefile arguments or Kconfig options.
>
> What do you say about
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Sent: November 14, 2018 at 7:29:38 AM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada
> , Michal Marek ,
> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H.
> Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing
> list , LKML
> Subject: Re: [PAT
From: Logan Gunthorpe
Sent: November 14, 2018 at 7:29:38 AM GMT
> To: Nadav Amit , Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Ingo Molnar , Masahiro Yamada
> , Michal Marek ,
> Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , H.
> Peter Anvin , X86 ML , Linux Kbuild mailing
> list , LKML
> Subject: Re: [PAT
On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it
> make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in
> the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are
> detected or manually
On 13/11/18 11:34 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Just one question before I send v2, since I have second thoughts. Does it
> make sense to require the “DISTCC” make parameter, or should it be set in
> the Kconfig? It can be detected automatically, the same way gcc/clang are
> detected or manually
t;> Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org,
>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
>>
>>
>>
>> * Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>> Introducing the use
t;> Peter Anvin , x...@kernel.org, linux-kbu...@vger.kernel.org,
>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
>>
>>
>>
>> * Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>> Introducing the use
bject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
>
>
>
> * Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
>> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
>> compilatio
bject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Fix distcc compilation with x86 macros
>
>
>
> * Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
>> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
>> compilatio
* Nadav Amit wrote:
> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and
> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the
* Nadav Amit wrote:
> Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
> sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
> compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and
> between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the
Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and
between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet
not assembled) source
Introducing the use of asm macros in c-code broke distcc, since it only
sends the preprocessed source file. The solution is to break the
compilation into two separate phases of compilation and assembly, and
between the two concatanate the assembly macros and the compiled (yet
not assembled) source
30 matches
Mail list logo
