Le Thu, 06 Sep 2012 09:44:28 +0200, Jan Holesovsky a écrit:
Hi Mat,
Mat M píše v St 05. 09. 2012 v 23:25 +0200:
But is it normal that ccache on 3.6 branch only uses 3Gb ? I find it
very
low, compared to all binary files produced.
Could someone on linux give its ccache stats to compare ?
Ken
Hi Mat,
Mat M píše v St 05. 09. 2012 v 23:25 +0200:
> ccache for windows under cygwin is working. That's a fact.
> ccache is provided as a binary in the dev-tools repo.
> As provided by kendy on
> http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/blog/archives/monthly/2011-04.html,
> I set it and my con
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 06:45 PM, Mat M wrote:
>>
>> Could someone on linux give its ccache stats to compare ?
>
>
> My ccache size on Linux is typically 400Mb per build. So 3Gb is pretty big
> compared to what I normally see on Linux.
Ah nevermind. I
>
> But is it normal that ccache on 3.6 branch only uses 3Gb ? I find it very
> low, compared to all binary files produced.
>
ccache of course, over time, fills up the cache space it is allowed to use
(up to approximately 10% below it, it seems). That's the whole point of it.
An under-utilized cac
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Mat M wrote:
> Hello
>
> ccache for windows under cygwin is working. That's a fact.
> ccache is provided as a binary in the dev-tools repo.
> As provided by kendy on
> http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~kendy/blog/archives/monthly/2011-04.html, I
> set it and my confi
On 09/05/2012 06:45 PM, Mat M wrote:
Could someone on linux give its ccache stats to compare ?
My ccache size on Linux is typically 400Mb per build. So 3Gb is pretty
big compared to what I normally see on Linux.
--
Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc
