On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:10:29PM +0200, Alfredo Braunstein wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hrmpf.
> >
> > I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
> > and took the lowest "real" value. Note that "user" and "sys" values
> > practi
On 9/25/07, Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hrmpf.
>
> I have results different from yours. I ran three times the commands
> and took the lowest "real" value. Note that "user" and "sys" values
> practically didn't change between runs.
How much memory do your sun and linux boxes hav
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:18:05PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > > What about d
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 03:51:26PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > > > this wou
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:19:47PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >Little puzzle for you:
> >
> >What belongs together?
> >
> >Configurations:
> >
> > (A) current svn, --enable-pch
> > (B) current svn, --disable-pch
> >
> At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 02:13:55AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > > this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
> > > sure we
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Little puzzle for you:
What belongs together?
Configurations:
(A) current svn, --enable-pch
(B) current svn, --disable-pch
At some point, pch defaulted to on, and it broke the build for me.
I have used --disable-pch since then.
Is it problem-free to use these days?
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 02:23:28PM +0200, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > What about deciding that we do not install the libraries? Of course,
> > this would imply that an installable LyX is a static one, but I am not
> > sure we care much about distributing dynamic versions anyway. We could
> > for e
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
> >> pch.
> >
> > I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
>
> Now that you talk about
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:32:54AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
> >> pch.
> >
> > I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
>
> Now that you talk abou
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But I remember that Lars had some good numbers when he wanted to push
>> pch.
>
> I have good numbers when I want to push something as well...
Now that you talk about you pushing something: with your changes to
allow building with shared libraries, the
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:30:31AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> Little puzzle for you:
>
> What belongs together?
>
> Configurations:
>
> (A) current svn, --enable-pch
> (B) current svn, --disable-pch
>
> Compile times/size of build tree part frontend/qt4:
>
> (1) real 7m35s user 6m25s
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 03:07:48PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> "Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> >> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
> >>
> >> Could somebody please try the sa
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
>> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
>>
>> Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
>
> I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:15:25PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> > Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> > 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
> >
> > Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
>
> I tried a while ago
> Possible conclusions: Precompiled headers are a waste of time and space.
> 22% increase on compile times, ~300% increase on disk space.
>
> Could somebody please try the same test with a different compiler?
I tried a while ago with gcc 3.4 on linux. Autotools' pch did not show
any advantage in c
16 matches
Mail list logo
