|

»

It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19)

View: New views

7 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Jon Biggar :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated this time? It's been pending since 1.36. -- Jon Biggar jon@... jon@... jonbiggar@... _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Vladimir Prus :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Wednesday 14 October 2009 Jon Biggar wrote: > 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated > this time? It's been pending since 1.36. What is the change in performance and memory consumption of bjam with this patch, when building Boost C++ Libraries? Thanks, Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Jon Biggar :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Wednesday 14 October 2009 Jon Biggar wrote: > >> 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated >> this time? It's been pending since 1.36. > > What is the change in performance and memory consumption of bjam with > this patch, when building Boost C++ Libraries? It increases the storage requirements for bjam rule parameters from 9sizeof(pointer) to 19sizeof(pointer) for the memory allocation associated with each bjam rule invocation stack frame. It adds slight overhead when parsing rule text to find parameters $(10) through $(19). I expect the effects of either to be quite small. -- Jon Biggar jon@... jon@... jonbiggar@... _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Vladimir Prus :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Monday 19 October 2009 Jon Biggar wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 October 2009 Jon Biggar wrote: > > > >> 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated > >> this time? It's been pending since 1.36. > > > > What is the change in performance and memory consumption of bjam with > > this patch, when building Boost C++ Libraries? > > It increases the storage requirements for bjam rule parameters from > 9sizeof(pointer) to 19sizeof(pointer) for the memory allocation > associated with each bjam rule invocation stack frame. > > It adds slight overhead when parsing rule text to find parameters $(10) > through $(19). > > I expect the effects of either to be quite small. Given that you surely have both the patched version and the original version, can you try? The gut feeling is that the change should not be huge, but gut feelings are often wrong. - Volodya _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Jon Biggar :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Vladimir Prus wrote: >>>> 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated >>>> this time? It's been pending since 1.36. >>> What is the change in performance and memory consumption of bjam with >>> this patch, when building Boost C++ Libraries? >> It increases the storage requirements for bjam rule parameters from >> 9sizeof(pointer) to 19sizeof(pointer) for the memory allocation >> associated with each bjam rule invocation stack frame. >> >> It adds slight overhead when parsing rule text to find parameters $(10) >> through $(19). >> >> I expect the effects of either to be quite small. > > Given that you surely have both the patched version and the original version, > can you try? The gut feeling is that the change should not be huge, but gut > feelings are often wrong. Unfortunately my main home linux machine went down, so I had to do this on a VM which is somewhat memory constrained and accesses its storage over NFS. I ran 'time bjam stage' on the entire 1.40.0 distro and got these results: original bjam: 166.328u 167.922s 18:33.62 30.0% bjam with patch: 144.215u 157.788s 19:24.57 25.9% second run: 158.794u 171.369s 18:32.89 29.6% So with my setup, I can't detect any significant time difference. -- Jon Biggar jon@... jon@... jonbiggar@... _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Vladimir Prus :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Wednesday 04 November 2009 Jon Biggar wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > >>>> 1.41 is coming soon. Can the patch in this ticket please be integrated > >>>> this time? It's been pending since 1.36. > >>> What is the change in performance and memory consumption of bjam with > >>> this patch, when building Boost C++ Libraries? > >> It increases the storage requirements for bjam rule parameters from > >> 9sizeof(pointer) to 19sizeof(pointer) for the memory allocation > >> associated with each bjam rule invocation stack frame. > >> > >> It adds slight overhead when parsing rule text to find parameters $(10) > >> through $(19). > >> > >> I expect the effects of either to be quite small. > > > > Given that you surely have both the patched version and the original version, > > can you try? The gut feeling is that the change should not be huge, but gut > > feelings are often wrong. > > Unfortunately my main home linux machine went down, so I had to do this > on a VM which is somewhat memory constrained and accesses its storage > over NFS. I ran 'time bjam stage' on the entire 1.40.0 distro and got > these results: > > original bjam: 166.328u 167.922s 18:33.62 30.0% > bjam with patch: 144.215u 157.788s 19:24.57 25.9% > second run: 158.794u 171.369s 18:32.89 29.6% > > > So with my setup, I can't detect any significant time difference. Jon, thanks for testing. I have now checked in the patch to trunk. It should be available in 1.42 (we've missed 1.41 in a number of ways) - Volodya > > > _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build
	Re: It's time for my per release beg for patch on ticket #2552 (Extending bjam to accept parameters 10-19) by Jon Biggar :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Vladimir Prus wrote: > Jon, > > thanks for testing. I have now checked in the patch to trunk. It should > be available in 1.42 (we've missed 1.41 in a number of ways) Ah, progress. Now I just have to wait another quarter. :) -- Jon Biggar jon@... jon@... jonbiggar@... _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build