Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:48:03 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christoffer_Str=F6mblad?= <cs@wa-sp.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compiling utilizing multiple CPUs Message-ID: <478D1C03.2070205@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <5EE5440B-E722-4638-A5BA-0ACA14CBA808@mac.com> References: <478BF671.7010104@wa-sp.com> <4EA98CBC-8BE3-4195-82A7-3E63C0D70593@mac.com> <478D0AC4.5080601@chuckr.org> <5EE5440B-E722-4638-A5BA-0ACA14CBA808@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Chuck Robey wrote: >>> The quality of the Makefiles or similar used by individual ports varies, >>> and many of them are not safe to compile in a multithreaded fashion. >>> You can set "MAKEFLAGS=-j3" or similar in your environment, but it's >>> really not recommended. >>> >> >> I think it's necessary to tell why its not recommend it: because many >> makefiles are insufficiently sedt up to correctly allow multiple cpu's to >> work side by side. > > Well, didn't I just say that above? > > I assure you that "not safe to compile in a multithreaded fashion" means > pretty much the same thing as "not set up to correctly allow multiple > CPU's to work side by side". :-) Well, I guess it felt to me that it wasn't cleear that the fault is of the makefiles, and not the tool. I kinda like make (there's gotta be one in every crowd, right?) and I guess I react to imagined slights rather quickly. There are SO many people creating make workalikes, and it smmes to me that most are the product of folks unwilling to learn make, unwilling to pay the cost (which doesn't seem all that high to me). There's gotta be more than 20 make replacements out there, probably more. It wasn't a comment on you, nowadays I just do a kneejerk defense of make. I really, really wish that all the changes that went into FreeBSD's make hadn't occurred, because that alone is a huge reason why no one else uses it. It actually can port back to being really portable, but removing all those many, many changes that made it compile only on FreeBSD take a while to undo. None of those huge raft of changes were done to bring in FreeBSD specific items, it was to group functions into different sets of libraries, meaning changes only in the compilation, not in function. All that kind of stuff results in our make being as popular as a case of the clap. > > Regards, -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjRwDz62J6PPcoOkRApe7AJ0frdQC3hYiSaq01+iVVxwJ+W9/ywCfVUOw ZKt7hI0o3S6Lfy1RDhrEmiM= =JSBT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?478D1C03.2070205>