[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Preparing the m68k port for the future.

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 15:27 +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:05:10PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Omitting debian-devel... 
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Ingo Juergensmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 02:09:19PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > The main showblocker with that is that package building doesn't support "make
> > > -jX" yet. I think other archs with SMP support might benefit as well when
> > > there would be a way to support this feature... 
> > Enabling `-j' will probably expose concurrency problems in the build system for
> > lots of packages.
> With the upcoming multi-core CPUs the need for sane SMP support will
> increase, I think. 
> When it would be possible to let the maintainer define if a package builts
> fine on SMP systems with -j... 
> > What about building different packages in parallel instead?
> Erm, well, some m68ks already suffering from bad disk i/o (macs). Concurrent
> builds might slow down the builds as well due to higher memory requirements.
> For Amigas there're not that many accel cards that support >128M RAM... I
> don't know how fast the disk i/o on ataris or macs is, but on my Amigas it's
> <5 MB/s even with the new kernel patches from Kars... and using two buildds
> with c++ builds on the same machine will result in much swapping for sure...
> ;)

CT60 Falcon's are 100MB/sec ram i/o and 7-8MB/sec IDE disk i/o but
devices are being worked on to use the 060 bus for disk access.  In
theory ARAnyM on PC should be able to get more but in practice I haven't
seen as such.  Additionally, in raw performance terms in GCC a real CT60
falcon is faster than aranym on all but the fastest hardware (>3GHz).  I
wish I could find a coldfire system of some sort to help out with this.
I can't have my falcon running linux really because I'm completely
backlogged on my native atari work.  Under MiNT we can't use g++ on gcc
3.x or 4.x!  


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: