Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Scott Reynolds <email@example.com>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/01/1999 22:17:58
On Thu, Dec 31, 1998 at 01:10:45PM -0800, Scott Reynolds wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 1998 at 01:12:08PM -0800, Scott Reynolds wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, please! And thank you. The time it saves on a single invocation is
> > > no big deal, but it adds up over the course of a build.
> > Really?
> > That is, I don't misbelieve you... but can you cite m68k numbers?
> Well, I never actually ran a complete build. I did a smaller test when
> we moved from a static to a dynamic libcc1, though, and extrapolating
> from that data I estimated a savings of about 20 minutes in my
> test environment (diskless 030-40).
20 minutes of a make build on a 68030 at 40 MHz? Thats nearly noise!
Or is this 20 minutes of a kernel build? Thats notable, although still
not really hurting. (20 minutes of, say, 2 hours)