Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/1998 16:43:11
On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Matt Thomas wrote:
: >If there are sincere objections to doing this, please let me know. I don't
: >intend on doing this Now, but it would be sometime before 1.4 cut.
: My concern is disk space, now that the VAX port has shared libs, the compiler
: uses a lot less disk space. I don't think that there will be that much of a
: savings for the VAX.
Try running a "make build" with a dynamic libcc1, and then one with a
compiler using a static libcc1. I bet you'd find a *big* time savings on
the latter, particularly on vax -- and I'm running some benchmarks to see.
The disk space issue is one thing, but it needs to be weighed against a
more important issue to most -- compile speed.
-- Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Bus. firstname.lastname@example.org)