From: Ian Fasel (ianfasel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-21 05:22:51
Hi, (sorry I think I sent this to David Abrahams instead of the list
I didn't realize parallel builds were supported by boost.build. This
is great, because I already use parallel builds on a cluster of G5s
using Xcode (using distcc), so it would be great if they work with my
big boost.build project. Unfortunately,
bjam -j4 release
doesn't seem to send any jobs out to other hosts. I've checked by
bjam -d2 -j4 release
and didn't see anything that looked like distcc was being called.
Since it works in my Xcode projects, I'm fairly sure distcc daemons
are all running correctly. However I'm fairly ignorant on how this is
supposed to work. Anything I need to do to configure this? Can
anyone who has used distcc with bjam offer advice? This is a darwin
target of course.
--- In jamboost_at_[hidden], David Abrahams <dave_at_b...> wrote:
> Daniel Goller <morfic_at_g...> writes:
> > Hi,
> > i was wondering if there is a possibility boost (bjam?) will be
> > supporting parallel builds better in the future
> This really belongs on the Jamboost list:
> http://www.boost.org/more/mailing_lists.htm#jamboost. I'm not sure
> any of us knew there was a problem with parallel builds.
> > i was testing building with -j5 (-j5 is about the sweet spot at
> > which distcc creates enough load on the helping XP3200 for this mac
> > mini i work on)
> distcc? XP3200? mac mini?
> I probably don't really need to know what these mean, but I'm curious.
> > and boost was no longer able to successfully build,
> What was the result? What errors did you see? Do you have any reason
> to believe the problem was connected to the -j option?
> > something it did before readding support for the user selected
> > number of jobs.
> Somebody re-added support for the -j option? When did support for -j
> ever go away? Or am I misunderstanding you?
> > Basically im wondering what to tell users who start
> > to notice we do not support their -jN settings ("bear with us it'll
> > work in future" vs "we do not know if it will ever work")
> How about "we do not know that it's even broken?" ;-)
> > after having received notice that supporting make options might not
> > be taken well by bjam (and being able to confirm this with distcc),
> > while at the same time wishing i could take advantage of distcc
> > myself.
> > Is this something of concern to boost, or will it most likely remain
> > at the state as it is in the 1.32.0 release?
> We're definitely concerned with making sure that parallel builds work,
> especially if there's currently a problem. That said, as soon as BBv2
> replaces BBv1 (soon!) we are probably going to start concentrating on
> transitioning from the use of bjam's build engine to that of Scons,
> which does support parallel builds very nicely. At that point,
> responsibility for support of parallelism will be on the shoulders of
> the Scons guys ;-)
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk