I ran binutils only with -smp 1 and I get a like 180% runtime. I suspect
it's some sort of threading management issue in KVM
Go n-éirí leat,
Stuart
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> > Le 23/09/2013 18:10, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >
> >> On the pdf o
I use virtio with the cache set to none on KVM. I get 57s on Host (16
threads, 64GB RAM, single SSD storage, using -j4) and 69s in a VM (4
threads, 8GB RAM, virtio is on the same SSD formated ext2, using -j4). Not
sure if these metrics are helpful for anyone or not, but there you go.
Go n-éirí l
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Ilya Kaliman wrote:
>> Also, last time I checked (23.1.1), GNU Emacs was 32-bit only, and
>> there were no plans of porting it to x86_64. Which I found unusual,
>> given that it is one of the most ported pieces of software in the world.
>
> On my pure x86_64 system
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Jensen"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: 6.16 gcc omit-frame pointer
>
>
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:38:06 -0600
>> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>
>> > David Jensen wrot
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, David Jensen
wrote:
> Note: Section 5.10, “GCC-4.5.1 - Pass 2” does not use a case statement
> for the frame-pointer. Problematic for x86_64? Perhaps both sections
> should be:
>
> case `uname -m` in
> i?86 | x86_64) sed -i 's/^T_CFLAGS =$/& -fomit-frame-pointer
x86, arm, ppc64, and x86_64 all work without a problem here - x86 and
x86_64 are both built from current SVN - arm and ppc64 are 6.7 +
coreutils-8.7.
On 11/24/10, DJ Lucas wrote:
> Guys, getting a segfault in sort using large input set. The behavior
> changed to always use the number of processor
Yesterday I got some strange errors from www.gnu.org while looking at
some Docs hosted there. It looked like perhaps someone was doing some
maintenance.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 06/07/10 21:25, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> My idea was, that we're using the scripts for an unspecified time. After
>> that, they may be replaced with event based jobs.
>>
>> Another point is, that the event based jobs are shorter than the
>
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Stuart Stegall:
[SNIP]
>> Fedora is dropping upstart for systemd. openSUSE is waiting on FC14
>> and how well systemd works before proceeding with upstart/systemd.
>> T
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
>
> --
> http://linuxfrom
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 13:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
>> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>>
>> Here are some points for discussion:
>>
>> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (li
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>
> Here are some points for discussion:
>
> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
> 2. The LFS user will learn something
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Andrew Benton wrote:
>> On 30/06/10 19:33, Stuart Stegall wrote:
>>> Seems like it should be the simplest way possible. Personally I don't
>>> like the grub-mkconfig - has failed to work for me a few times, an
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Sebastian Plotz
wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 30.06.2010, 13:44 +0100 schrieb Andrew Benton:
>> But it won't boot very far. The kernel won't be able to mount its root
>> partition unless you manually edit the grub.cfg or compile the kernel
>> with an initramfs
>>
>> A
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> HouHongxun wrote:
>> On 2010年06月24日 00:04, Stuart Stegall wrote:
>>> I noticed that MPFR 3.0.0 was added to the Development Book. Two
>>> things I noticed about this:
>>>
>>> 1. There are 1
I noticed that MPFR 3.0.0 was added to the Development Book. Two
things I noticed about this:
1. There are 156 tests now (that's with the patch mentioned in 2 ..)
2. There's a patch for MPFR 3.0.0: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/patch01
The patch is necessary as there's a problem with the rele
16 matches
Mail list logo
