> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 07:58:28 +0200
> From: Henrik Carlqvist
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org, matt.stav.tay...@gmail.com
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 02:13:36 +0100
> Matt Staveley-Taylor wrote:
> > Browsing the mailing list I can see that the behaviour of -j with no
> > arguments has been discussed a few
>
> Isn't nproc or nproc+1 too much? On systems with hyper-threading,
> this will try using too many jobs, and might cause the system be
> significantly less responsive. Maybe nproc/2 is a better default?
>
This is an interesting question and I suppose the answer depends on many
factors. At my o
DSB wrote:
> Isn't nproc or nproc+1 too much? On systems with hyper-threading,
> this will try using too many jobs, and might cause the system be
> significantly less responsive. Maybe nproc/2 is a better default?
>
>
> This is an interesting question and I suppose the answer depend
> Isn't nproc or nproc+1 too much? On systems with hyper-threading,
> this will try using too many jobs, and might cause the system be
> significantly less responsive. Maybe nproc/2 is a better default?
There have been many other good suggestions of choices for make -j and the
choice depends upo
Add the -J/--detect-job-slots flag as an shorthand equivalent for -j
with a value of nproc+2. The help message is deliberately left ambiguous
so that we could change it to a different heuristic in future, if
desired.
The -J flag is *not* passed through to sub-makes in MAKEFLAGS, but
instead expand
