Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Pádraig, Pádraig Brady writes: > I do wonder though whether it would be better > to have num_processors() try to return this by default? num_processors is going to be used by programs as nproc will be used by scripts; all considerations we made for nproc can be applied to num_processors.

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Thanks for continuing with this. I'm not sure we agreed on the name but I like nproc at least :) Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > +...@item --available > +...@opindex --available > +Print the number of processors available to the current process. It > +may be less than the number of installed processo

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: ... >>From d1dd83a6a4130ee8b8be47d5d5db461fc60e166a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 ... > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS > index 0760775..6b8f6b3 100644 > --- a/NEWS > +++ b/NEWS > @@ -60,6 +60,10 @@ GNU coreutils NEWS-*- > outline -*- >touch now

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Jim, thanks for your quick review. Jim Meyering writes: > Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: >> I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new >> program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and >> --installed. >> By default --available is used, if --available is n

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new > program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and > --installed. > By default --available is used, if --available is not know then > --installed is used. > > I added another test to ensure

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi, I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and --installed. By default --available is used, if --available is not know then --installed is used. I added another test to ensure nproc --available <= nproc --ins

Re: test-utimens.h:105: assertion failed

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Eric Blake on 10/30/2009 6:53 AM: >> I can't reproduce on current debian testing, so it is likely an old bug. > > The Linux man pages are explicit that older kernels had a bug where > UTIME_OMIT with a non-zero seconds field failed with E

Re: more test suite problems

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ralf Wildenhues on 10/30/2009 12:00 PM: >> @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_FUNC_FSEEKO], >> >>AC_CACHE_CHECK([for fseeko], [gl_cv_func_fseeko], >> [ >> - AC_TRY_LINK([#include ], [fseeko (stdin, 0, 0);], >> + AC_TRY_LINK(

Re: FTS not ready for a remount during traversal

Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Thu October 22 2009 16:42:48 Jim Meyering wrote: >> Have you measured the performance penalty it incurs? >> I hope it is possible to do the same thing, but with less of a penalty. >> >> I'm afraid we'll have to do something like that one way or >> another. At best, the impa

[PATCH] admin: automate one more part of the release process

FYI, I've just pushed this to coreutils, so that the following from README-release is no longer manual: * Manually set the date, version number, and [stable/alpha/beta] on line 3 of NEWS, then do e.g.,: v=8.0 pkg=$(sed -n 's/^PACKAGE = \(.*\)/\1/p' Makefile) git commit -F <(printf

Re: [PATCH] don't let environment settings perturb build

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:06:16PM CEST: >> Subject: [PATCH] don't let environment settings perturb build >> >> Setting the envvars, LIB_CLOCK_GETTIME, LIB_EACCESS or LIB_NANOSLEEP >> could cause a configure-time and/or build-time malfunction. >> Typica

Re: more warnings patrol

Eric Blake wrote: > I'm committing this, to silence some unused variables, and to make > inttostr.c quiet even on older gcc. ... > diff --git a/lib/inttostr.c b/lib/inttostr.c ... > +#ifndef inttype_is_unsigned >if (i < 0) > { >do > @@ -45,6 +41,7 @@ inttostr (inttype i, char *buf)

Re: [PATCH] don't let environment settings perturb build

Hello Jim, all, sorry for chiming in late. * Jim Meyering wrote on Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:06:16PM CEST: > Subject: [PATCH] don't let environment settings perturb build > > Setting the envvars, LIB_CLOCK_GETTIME, LIB_EACCESS or LIB_NANOSLEEP > could cause a configure-time and/or build-time malfu