On Jul 24, 2013 2:52 AM, "Jacob Carlborg" <doob at me.com> wrote:> > Do your LLVM development on Mac OS X :)Should work well. Apple is one of the bigger supporters of LLVM, so I'd hope OS X would be a suitable dev platform.> It depends on what your needs are. Using VirtualBox will probably be theeasiest. It also allows you to run both Mac OS X and Ubuntu simultaneously. The downside is that it will be slower than running Ubuntu natively.> > I say, try running in VirtualBox first.Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine. Also, look into seamless mode. It lets you use windows opened in the VM in the host OS. That sounds vague. Just Google it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130724/bce09994/attachment.html>
On 24 Jul 2013, at 08:47, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote:> Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine.I use VirtualBox (hosting a FreeBSD VM) on a MacBook Pro for most of my LLVM development.> Also, look into seamless mode. It lets you use windows opened in the VM in the host OS. That sounds vague. Just Google it.Or set up a loopback network adaptor and ssh in. Most of the reason I use OS X is that their Terminal.app doesn't suck nearly as much as the other terminal emulators I've used. It happily persists directory state, so I have a little script that creates a temporary directory for each ssh session storing a tmux id and so I can resume terminal sessions across host machine reboots, without the windows moving. David
24.07.2013, 12:31, "David Chisnall" <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk>:> On 24 Jul 2013, at 08:47, Tyler Hardin <tghardin1 at catamount.wcu.edu> wrote: > >> Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine. > > I use VirtualBox (hosting a FreeBSD VM) on a MacBook Pro for most of my LLVM development. > >> Also, look into seamless mode. It lets you use windows opened in the VM in the host OS. That sounds vague. Just Google it. > > Or set up a loopback network adaptor and ssh in. Most of the reason I use OS X is that their Terminal.app doesn't suck nearly as much as the other terminal emulators I've used. It happily persists directory state, so I have a little script that creates a temporary directory for each ssh session storing a tmux id and so I can resume terminal sessions across host machine reboots, without the windows moving.Try iTerm2 with tmux integration. -- Regards, Konstantin
On 2013-07-24 09:47, Tyler Hardin wrote:> Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native > performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is > definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. > Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine.At work, it takes significantly longer to boot our Ruby on Rails application on a virtual machine than natively. I also noticed that disk access can be quite slow on a virtual machine compared to native. -- /Jacob Carlborg
What you could do is single boot Ubuntu using a program called refit. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:> On 2013-07-24 09:47, Tyler Hardin wrote: > > Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native >> performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is >> definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. >> Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine. >> > > At work, it takes significantly longer to boot our Ruby on Rails > application on a virtual machine than natively. I also noticed that disk > access can be quite slow on a virtual machine compared to native. > > > -- > /Jacob Carlborg > > ______________________________**_________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/**mailman/listinfo/llvmdev<http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev> >-- Thanks, Brian Herman college.nfshost.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130725/fde27bb4/attachment.html>
On 25 Jul 2013, at 08:49, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:> On 2013-07-24 09:47, Tyler Hardin wrote: > >> Not much slower. VBox does an amazing job at getting near native >> performance on modern machines (those with nested paging etc.). This is >> definitely the best option if your computer has ~2g ram and 2+ cores. >> Give the Ubuntu VM 2g and 1 (maybe 2) core/s and it should be fine. > > At work, it takes significantly longer to boot our Ruby on Rails application on a virtual machine than natively. I also noticed that disk access can be quite slow on a virtual machine compared to native.It takes a bit less than 10 minutes for me to do a full build of LLVM+Clang in a FreeBSD VM with 2GB of RAM allocated on my MacBook Pro. The I/O speed is slower than native, but it is still faster than building natively on the Core i5-based Ubuntu box that I tried recently (both machines have SSDs - if you're doing a lot of builds, mechanical disks will cripple your productivity). Of course, the 24 core machine we have in a rack with 256GB of RAM is noticeably faster - it does a clean build in 3 minutes - but it's less convenient to carry around (and a lot louder!). David