On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 12:18:22 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> So is it comparable to ccache then (caching all build output, not just
> from .c files)?
Yes except that ccache doesn't cache the building, tuning, and linking...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 2014-11-03 10:23, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Thanks, I should use sage -f more often.
So, what became of Jeroen's idea of using the
"order only dependency" feature of GNU make?
I created
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17286
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
On 2014-11-03 12:15, Volker Braun wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 9:44:10 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
I don't know about hashdist, but I don't see how it could magically fix
the "compile time when switching branches" issue.
By caching properly, and using tarball + build script + v
On Monday, November 3, 2014 9:44:10 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I don't know about hashdist, but I don't see how it could magically fix
> the "compile time when switching branches" issue.
>
By caching properly, and using tarball + build script + variables as hash
key. So you never have to
On 2014-11-03 10:37, Volker Braun wrote:
A better long-term plan is IMHO to use hashdist, which solves both the
"compile time when switching branches" and LD_LIBRARY_PATH issues.
I don't know about hashdist, but I don't see how it could magically fix
the "compile time when switching branches" is
This probably needs a bunch of testing to figure out which dependencies are
not really compiled-in, so I wouldn't want to rush it into 6.4.
A better long-term plan is IMHO to use hashdist, which solves both the
"compile time when switching branches" and LD_LIBRARY_PATH issues.
On Monday, Nov
On 2014-11-03 10:23, Ralf Stephan wrote:
Thanks, I should use sage -f more often.
So, what became of Jeroen's idea of using the
"order only dependency" feature of GNU make?
Still a good idea. If Volker considers it a good idea for Sage-6.4, I'll
make a patch quickly.
--
You received this me
Thanks, I should use sage -f more often.
So, what became of Jeroen's idea of using the
"order only dependency" feature of GNU make?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Francois Bissey <
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/tyXJC2rtsag
>
>
see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/tyXJC2rtsag
> On 3/11/2014, at 22:07, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Up to one of the last beta versions, 'make' only built new libraries once.
> Now, each time I switch branches to an older one and merge develop,
> 'make' will rebuild pyt
Well, “we” decided that was the only sane behaviour and made it the default.
I’ll try to find the thread for you.
François
> On 3/11/2014, at 22:07, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Up to one of the last beta versions, 'make' only built new libraries once.
> Now, each time I switch branches to
Hello,
Up to one of the last beta versions, 'make' only built new libraries once.
Now, each time I switch branches to an older one and merge develop,
'make' will rebuild python-2.7.8, ATLAS and whatnot, taking half an hour
just for a branch switch on a 6-core, 8GB desktop machine.
As make is still
11 matches
Mail list logo
