Heya Markus,
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:37:02AM +0200, Markus Mohrhard wrote:
The results for the initial build without building or executing the tests:
real 70m17.990s
user 436m43.860s
sys 28m3.680s
After that the results of a time make, therefore forcing the build of
everything test related and executing the tests:
real 11m30.192s
user 58m43.384s
sys 1m36.876s
Did you by chance have an opportunity to also ran "make" from scratch on that
machine? I assume/hope it wont take the 70 min + 11 min = 82 min. a straight
addition would make one assume, because make will use idle job slots during a
full build.
IOW, these number suggest a 82min/70min = 17% overhead in real and a (436 +
58)min/436min = 13% overhead in CPU time -- but I assume the real overhead in a
build from scratch is smaller than both of that in the real world.
The most critical time I see from in all this is not anything build from
scratch anyway, but the for a simple
touch-one-cxx-recompile-relink-and-then-run-all-the-tests scenarios. So the:
real 6m37.479s
user 45m4.740s
as an _absolute_ is the key there, I guess.
Best,
Bjoern
P.S.: I would have assumed compiling/linking the tests to take much more time
than running the tests. But it seems with 45min/58min=77% -- most of the time
is indeed spend on running tests, not building them.
P.S.: For reference, the output of "time make build-nocheck" would be helpful
too (aka a noop incremental build time overhead in make/dep parsing etc.)
Context
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.