On 17 August 2013 14:36, Renato Golin renato.golin@linaro.org wrote:
On 17 August 2013 08:36, Michael Hope michaelh@juju.net.nz wrote:
user/real is 3.81 so it was nicely CPU bound. The Wandboard runs at 1.0 GHz vs the U2 1.7 GHz and 142 / 1.7 = 83, which is very close to your 80 minutes.
Yes, on release builds, the SATA makes little difference.
(+linaro-toolchain, which I dropped at the start)
I had a hack and set up a chroot on my Tegra 3 OUYA to run distcc. With the Wandboard driving and a 'ninja make -j12', LLVM 3.3 built in 75 minutes (meh). You really need the 2 GiB of RAM - the 650 MiB left on the OUYA plus the occasional four 250 MiB g++ hurts.
-- Michael
On 24 August 2013 09:08, Michael Hope michaelh@juju.net.nz wrote:
I had a hack and set up a chroot on my Tegra 3 OUYA to run distcc. With the Wandboard driving and a 'ninja make -j12', LLVM 3.3 built in 75 minutes (meh). You really need the 2 GiB of RAM - the 650 MiB left on the OUYA plus the occasional four 250 MiB g++ hurts.
Hi Michael,
Is this LLVM+Clang? Just LLVM in 75 minutes is quite a lot, even for a Tegra3.
For distcc, you really want to use ninja pools:
http://www.systemcall.org/blog/2013/02/distributed-compilation-on-a-pandaboa...
It'll speed up your linking and reduce the memory footprint. What I really wanted was that distcc would know the linking dependencies during compilation and compile the same groups on the same boards, so that linking could *also* happen on a distributed fashion, but I'm not considering implementing that myself. ;)
About the pump-mode slow-down, I think it was the network, that was done over Wifi due to limitations on the office network, but I'm not sure.
cheers, --renato
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
-
Michael Hope -
Renato Golin