On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 07:59:07 -0400 Josh Fisher wrote:
> Bacula uses autoconf, so to cross compile, start
> with the --build and --host flags for the configure
> script. See
> https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/Cross_002dCompilation.html.
Thanks.
--
George
__
On 9/29/2018 5:52 AM, George Anchev via Bacula-users wrote:
Can you please advise about this:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:12:42 +0300 George Anchev wrote:
Also: I would like to use a faster machine to create
builds for other slower machines (one of them even
32-bit). Do I need anything more than j
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:30:09 +1000 Gary R. Schmidt
wrote:
> Well, take some advice from someone who has been
> writing it for more than thirty-five years, and
> still does - just leave it alone.
Thanks.
Can you please advise about this:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 12:12:42 +0300 George Anchev wrote:
>
On 29/09/2018 18:57, George Anchev via Bacula-users wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:09:24 +1000 Gary R. Schmidt
wrote:
You appear to be suffering from what one of my
lecturers back at $GOSHWHATTAUNIVERSITY called
"Premature Optimisation." (That was back in the
1980s, and he had worked on CSIRAC
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 12:09:24 +1000 Gary R. Schmidt
wrote:
> You appear to be suffering from what one of my
> lecturers back at $GOSHWHATTAUNIVERSITY called
> "Premature Optimisation." (That was back in the
> 1980s, and he had worked on CSIRAC :-) )
Perhaps because I haven't written any C code fo
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 01:36:46 +0200 Tilman Schmidt
wrote:
> No. As Martin already wrote, you can remove it from
> the built executables by using the "strip" command,
> see
>
> man strip
Great. Thanks.
--
George
___
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-us
On 9/28/18 10:09 PM, Gary R. Schmidt wrote:
> Most of the time the various Bacula programs are waiting for I/O
> operations to complete, the only time the CPU gets heavily involved is
> if you are running compression.
>
> Just use the defaults. You won't save enough CPU, memory, or time to
> j
On 29/09/2018 04:00, George Anchev via Bacula-users wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:47:46 +0100 Martin Simmons
wrote:
This is not Bacula-specific: producing debugging
information is useful, just in case you need it.
And an end user generally does not need it. Also AFAIK
adding debugging info to
Am 28.09.2018 um 22:05 schrieb George Anchev via Bacula-users:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:22:31 +0200 Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>
[debuging information]
>> What's more, it's easy to remove should it bother
>> you, but imposssible to add later if you didn't
>> create it while building the executable.
>
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 21:22:31 +0200 Tilman Schmidt
wrote:
> As long as everything runs smoothly you don't.
> As soon as you want to create a crash report you do.
> And it costs next to nothing so it is a good thing
> to have in place should a crash occur.
> What's more, it's easy to remove should i
Am 28.09.2018 um 20:00 schrieb George Anchev via Bacula-users:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:47:46 +0100 Martin Simmons wrote:
>
>> This is not Bacula-specific: producing debugging
>> information is useful, just in case you need it.
>
> And an end user generally does not need it.
As long as everythin
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 14:47:46 +0100 Martin Simmons
wrote:
> This is not Bacula-specific: producing debugging
> information is useful, just in case you need it.
And an end user generally does not need it. Also AFAIK
adding debugging info to binaries makes them slower.
> You can remove it using str
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:26:40 +0300, George Anchev via Bacula-users said:
>
> As for standard options - according to the manual:
>
> 'We recommend [...] CFLAGS="-g -O2 -Wall" [...]'
>
> but it is not clear why e.g. "-g" is needed ("Produce
> debugging information" (ref. `man gcc`)) if one i
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:55:38 +0200 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> You are free to try anything, but it is to your own
> peril, and we cannot support anything but standard
> Bacula compile options.
Of course I can play with things but the question is
would it make sense to use -O3 instead of -O2 which it
s
Hello,
You are free to try anything, but it is to your own peril, and we cannot
support anything but standard Bacula compile options.
Best regards,
Kern
On 09/24/2018 11:12 AM, George Anchev via Bacula-users wrote:
Hi,
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GCC_optimization explains
that:
-ftree-ve
Hi Josh,
You seem to be replying to an earlier message (about
CFLAGS optimizations) quoting the latest one (which
is about building for another architecture), so at
first that got me confused. FWIW: I don't use software
compression (the storage has hardware compression).
--
George
_
On 9/25/2018 5:18 AM, George Anchev via Bacula-users wrote:
...
Also: I would like to use a faster machine to
create builds for other slower machines (one of
them even 32-bit). Do I need anything more than
just finding the proper "-march" setting for the
target CPU?
I'm not sure you need to d
Hi Sergio,
I suppose you replied personally to me instead of to
the list by mistake. I will provide my answer here,
quoting yours:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:56:30 +0200 Sergio Gelato wrote:
> I think you're asking the wrong question. The
> question I would ask is: is the performance of
> Bacula lim
Hi,
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GCC_optimization explains
that:
> -ftree-vectorize is an optimization option (default
> at -O3 and -Ofast), which attempts to vectorize
> loops using the selected ISA if possible. The reason
> it isn't enabled at -O2 is that it doesn't always
> improve code, it ca
19 matches
Mail list logo
