From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Git and GCC Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:27:10 -0500 Message-ID: <20071207072710.GA13620@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20071205.204848.227521641.davem@davemloft.net> <4aca3dc20712052111o730f6fb6h7a329ee811a70f28@mail.gmail.com> <1196918132.10408.85.camel@brick> <4aca3dc20712052117j3ef5cf99y848d4962ae8ddf33@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910712052247x116cabb4q48ebafffb93f7e03@mail.gmail.com> <20071206071503.GA19504@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071206173946.GA10845@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20071207065047.GB13101@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jon Smirl , Daniel Berlin , Harvey Harrison , David Miller , ismail@pardus.org.tr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: gcc-return-142793-gcc=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Dec 07 08:27:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcc@gmane.org Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J0XcZ-0001oG-TK for gcc@gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 08:27:40 +0100 Received: (qmail 26105 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2007 07:27:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 26093 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2007 07:27:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net (HELO peff.net) (66.23.211.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:27:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 3344 invoked by uid 111); 7 Dec 2007 07:27:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:27:11 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Dec 2007 02:27:10 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071207065047.GB13101@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org Archived-At: On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:50:47AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > Yes, but balanced by one thread running out of data way earlier than the > other, and completing the task with only one CPU. I am doing a 4-thread > test on a quad-CPU right now, and I will also try it with threads=1 and > threads=6 for comparison. Hmm. As this has been running, I read the rest of the thread, and it looks like Jon Smirl has already posted the interesting numbers. So nevermind, unless there is something particular you would like to see. -Peff