19 messages in com.perforce.jamming[jamming] Batching compile actions _d...
FromSent OnAttachments
Peter Björklund13 Sep 2003 15:40 
Peter Björklund14 Sep 2003 02:11 
Alen Ladavac14 Sep 2003 04:30 
Peter Björklund14 Sep 2003 05:57 
Matt Armstrong14 Sep 2003 07:51 
Alen Ladavac14 Sep 2003 09:00 
Alen Ladavac14 Sep 2003 09:40 
Alen Ladavac14 Sep 2003 11:00 
Matt Armstrong14 Sep 2003 13:35 
Alen Ladavac14 Sep 2003 14:02 
Matt Armstrong15 Sep 2003 09:41 
Wallace, Richard17 Sep 2003 17:13 
Paul Forgey18 Sep 2003 11:17 
Wallace, Richard19 Sep 2003 13:43 
Paul Forgey19 Sep 2003 14:53 
Wallace, Richard19 Sep 2003 15:13 
Paul Forgey19 Sep 2003 15:30 
Wallace, Richard19 Sep 2003 16:01 
Ingo Weinhold20 Sep 2003 02:56 
Subject:[jamming] Batching compile actions _does_ make a difference! _Huge_ difference!
From:Alen Ladavac (al@croteam.com)
Date:09/14/2003 02:02:01 PM
List:com.perforce.jamming

The thing is that for a lot of includes, you _must_ have precompiled headers, and must have them tuned well. Without it, it is so slow that nothing makes a difference.

This is probably what I ran into then, since I wasn't using pre-compiled headers. ;-) So, for me, it makes more sense to concentrate on pre-compiled headers first.

Well, that part is easy. It's all in the manual. :)

I am interested, how did you arrange for Jam to compile in batches when you did your test?

I just created a batch file that compiled N files individually and another batch file that compiled the same N files in batches.

Doh! I hoped you had some Jam trick for that. :(

Alen