Hi Robert. The builds end up at: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/
and include the times for each step such as: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99475/logs/armv7l-maverick-cbuild49-carina6-cortexa9r1/gcc-build.time http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99475/logs/armv7l-maverick-cbuild49-carina6-cortexa9r1/gcc-testsuite.time The carina machines are OMAP3s. I'm building C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C, and Obj-C++ and it takes 12 hours for the build and 16 for the testsuite. These are on a NFS root. A ursa machine (PandaBoard) takes 5:14 to build at -j2 and 9 hours on the testsuite at -j1. 12 divided by 5.25 hours makes the Panda 2.3 x faster than the OMAP3. -- Michael On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Robert Nelson <robertcnel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: >> We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / >> push approach in gcc-linaro. This works fine for a reasonable cost >> but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a >> month. Ramana, Andrew, and I had a talk about this earlier in the >> week and I've written up the ideas here: >> https://wiki.linaro.org/MichaelHope/Sandbox/ReviewThoughts >> >> We're a bit unique as gcc-linaro started from a mature base, running >> the testsuite takes days, and the product is so big that bzr takes a >> long time to work on it. > > Hey Michael, > > which target's are you actively building/testing fo (c,c++, etc?) > > for reference, i'm just doing "c,c++", here's my average's.. > > xM: build: 14 hours, testsuite: 22 hours.. > Panda: build: 9.5 hours, testsuite: 12hours.. > > Regards, > > -- > Robert Nelson > http://www.rcn-ee.com/ > _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
