Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Tim Prince <timothyprince@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:30:30 -0700
Charles Russell wrote:
Tim Prince wrote:I suppose the individual objects have be visible in the make dependency
For example,(with f77 code) if the makefile
runs fsplit on a single source file, causes each subroutine to be
rebuilt separately, then combines individual objects into a single large
object, make doesn't automatically see the possibility of building the
individual objects in parallel.
Is there some simple way to build them in parallel?
analysis, requiring rules which cause each individual source file to be
generated by fsplit, and automatically forming a table of dependencies
for each big relocatable object. It would remain to be seen whether the
speedup from parallelization makes up for the additional time spent by
make during its initial analysis phase (not to mention the time we spend
learning more about makefiles).
I gave this only as an example, not thinking that many people are
interested in the 2 level relocatable object build. When the build is
done from scratch, parallel make already speeds it up greatly.
Compiler vendors don't advocate 2 level relocatable object builds. They
are done partly to skip a lot of the interprocedural linkage stuff the
compiler people spent so much time on.
.
- References:
- gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: FX
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Tim Prince
- Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- From: Charles Russell
- gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Prev by Date: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Next by Date: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Previous by thread: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Next by thread: Re: gfortran, g95, and dual-core
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
