On 14 November 2006 19:40, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:15:19PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Geert's followup explained this seeming anomaly: he means that the crude
>> high-level granularity of "make -j" is enough to keep all cpus busy at
>> 100%, and I'm fairly persuaded by the arguments that, at the moment, that's
>> sufficient in most circumstances to get 99% of the benefit there to be had.
>
> Currently the serial step is linking, and for the typical builds I do it
> is the bottleneck as the c/c++ -> o step is highly parallelizable. Figure
> out how to make the linker parallel, and then we can talk.
I was only talking in terms of the benefit to be had vs. threading the
linker!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
