On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:18:05PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
What about deciding that
On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrmpf.
I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
and took the lowest real value. Note that user and sys values
practically didn't change between runs.
How much memory do your sun and linux boxes have? In my
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:10:29PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrmpf.
I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
and took the lowest real value. Note that user and sys values
practically didn't change
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:18:05PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > > What about
On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrmpf.
>
> I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
> and took the lowest "real" value. Note that "user" and "sys" values
> practically didn't change between runs.
How much memory do your sun and linux boxes
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:10:29PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hrmpf.
> >
> > I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
> > and took the lowest "real" value. Note that "user" and "sys" values
> >
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:47PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the build for me.
I
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
this would imply
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:47PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Little puzzle for you:
> >
> >What belongs together?
> >
> >Configurations:
> >
> > (A) current svn, --enable-pch
> > (B) current svn, --disable-pch
> >
> At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > > > this
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the build for me.
I have used --disable-pch since then.
Is it problem-free to use these days?
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
sure we care much
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the build for me.
I have used --disable-pch since then.
Is it problem-free to use these days?
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > > this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
> > > sure we
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
pch.
I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
Now that you talk about you pushing something: with your changes to
allow building with shared libraries, the
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
pch.
I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
Now that you talk about you pushing
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
pch.
I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
Now that you talk about you pushing
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
sure we care much about distributing dynamic versions anyway. We could
for example
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
>> pch.
>
> I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
Now that you talk about you pushing something: with your changes to
allow building with shared libraries,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
> >> pch.
> >
> > I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
>
> Now that you talk
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
> >> pch.
> >
> > I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
>
> Now that you talk
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
> > sure we care much about distributing dynamic versions anyway. We could
> > for
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:15:25PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
I tried a while ago with gcc
Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux. Autotools'
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:07:48PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
Could somebody please try the same test with a
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:30:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
Compile times/size of build tree part frontend/qt4:
(1) real 7m35s user 6m25s sys 0m23s
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:15:25PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> > Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> > 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
> >
> > Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
>
> I tried a while ago
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
>> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
>>
>> Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
>
> I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:07:48PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> "Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> >> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
> >>
> >> Could somebody please try the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:30:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Little puzzle for you:
>
> What belongs together?
>
> Configurations:
>
> (A) current svn, --enable-pch
> (B) current svn, --disable-pch
>
> Compile times/size of build tree part frontend/qt4:
>
> (1) real 7m35s user
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
Compile times/size of build tree part frontend/qt4:
(1) real 7m35s user 6m25s sys 0m23s58.5 MB
(2) real 6m12s user 5m12s sys 0m19s19.9 MB
Solution:
Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux. Autotools' pch did not show
any advantage in
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
Compile times/size of build tree part frontend/qt4:
(1) real 7m35s user 6m25s sys 0m23s58.5 MB
(2) real 6m12s user 5m12s sys 0m19s19.9 MB
Solution:
> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
>
> Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux. Autotools' pch did not show
any advantage in
34 matches
Mail list logo
