By: ⚛ (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com), August 12, 2019 12:59 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
⚛ (0xe2.0x9a.0x9b.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 12, 2019 1:51 am wrote:
> if "occ foo.c" takes 1 second on a clean/pristine
> machine and "occ bar.c" also takes 1 second on a clean machine and if foo.c and bar.c have something
> in common (i.e: bar.c's structure compresses well assuming foo.c's structure is used to initialize
> the compressor's dictionary), then compiling the two files serially on a clean machine by running
> "occ foo.c; occ bar.c" will take 1.5 seconds. Compiling the two files in parallel on a dual-core x86
> CPU by running "occ foo.c & occ bar.c & wait" cannot complete faster than in 1 second, which yields
> a dual-core scaling of 50%.
1 obviously isn't 50% of 1.5 - but that does not change the merit of the argument.
-atom
> if "occ foo.c" takes 1 second on a clean/pristine
> machine and "occ bar.c" also takes 1 second on a clean machine and if foo.c and bar.c have something
> in common (i.e: bar.c's structure compresses well assuming foo.c's structure is used to initialize
> the compressor's dictionary), then compiling the two files serially on a clean machine by running
> "occ foo.c; occ bar.c" will take 1.5 seconds. Compiling the two files in parallel on a dual-core x86
> CPU by running "occ foo.c & occ bar.c & wait" cannot complete faster than in 1 second, which yields
> a dual-core scaling of 50%.
1 obviously isn't 50% of 1.5 - but that does not change the merit of the argument.
-atom