On 14/02/12 13:30, Noel Grandin wrote:
On 2012-02-14 14:22, Michael Meeks wrote:
Perhaps; could it also be that we like to compile with gcc in some
eight way parallel way, but when it comes to linking, we -really-
don't want to bog our machine down in that way ? I wonder if we could
explicitly limit parallelism of linking in some way (?) - we should
prolly also do this for the java compilation which is often quite
memory intensive and doesn't do well with umpteen in parallel (at
least on my machine).
Java compilation would be a hang of a lot faster if the build process
passed all of the java files to the compiler in one go.
Java is really not meant to be compiled in a file-at-a-time-model, it is
meant to be compiled in a single-project-at-a-time go.
do we _really_ invoke javac once for each source file anywhere?
at least in gbuild it's invoked once per jar file (technically, per
JavaClassSet that the jar depends upon), which is the only sane way to
do it.
Context
Re: OK to get rid of scaddins? · Michael Meeks
Re: OK to get rid of scaddins? · Eike Rathke
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.