Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:16983 comp.sys.encore:370
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!srhqla!quad1!david
From: david@quad1.quad.com (David A. Fox)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.encore
Subject: Re: Getting the most for a process.
Summary: Parallel cc? No problem.
Message-ID: <3314@gouda.quad.com>
Date: 13 Oct 89 08:25:26 GMT
References: <593@cogent.UUCP> <12034@cgl.ucsf.EDU> <40090@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1029@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <20140@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@gouda.quad.com (David A. Fox)
Organization: Quadratron Systems Inc, Thousand Oaks, Ca
Lines: 34

In article <20140@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, the Encore version of cc, which is apparently a Greenhills
>C compiler, has all of its `phases' built in.  Thus, if you are compiling
>a single file, you cannot preprocess on cpu 0, compile on cpu 1, and
>assemble on cpu 2 all at the same time.
>
>In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
>Domain:	chris@cs.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

Tsk, tsk. You are forgetting about the -X182 option to cc :-) : 

.c.o:
	$(CC) $(CFLAGS) -S -c -Wc,-X182 $< | as -o $*.o 

I saw this in some encore makefiles once. I sure don't bother, but now
that I've been reminded... Also worth looking at perhaps, are the
(apparently obsolete) "-A" and (apparently preferred) "-q
nodirect_code" options; They seem also to fork off processes like
crazy.

After all, the more processes you use, the sooner it'll be done. 

Right? :-) 


-- 
--
David  A. Fox					Quadratron Systems Inc.	
Inet: david@quad.com, Postmaster@quad.com
UUCP: david@quad1.uucp 
      uunet!ccicpg!quad1!david

"Man, woman, child... All is up against the wall - of science."