Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Scott Reynolds <>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 01/03/1999 00:36:04
    Date:        Fri, 1 Jan 1999 18:38:19 -0800 (PST)
    From:        Scott Reynolds <>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.NEB.3.96.990101182152.10461A-100000@basalt>

  | I figure it this way: the cost in disk space is more than easily made
  | up for by the decrease in compile time.

Which is preferable clearly depends upon the needs of each individual
site.   Sites with somewhat limited disk space (compared with requirements
from the system, and users and applications) and who do comparatively little
compiling most probably would prefer dynamically linked compilers.   Those
who spend all day rebuilding the universe most probably prefer static
compilers.   For some sites, other applications statically compiled probably
makes a lot of sense (for some of my systems, a static "ls" would probably
be an advantage, it is by far the most used command).

As to what should be the default - either would do, sites that prefer the
other can always rebuild.   I would note however that disk space is a finite
resource, if you have insufficient, there is little you can do (including 
rebuild).   On the other hand, CPU time is unbounded, if that is the resource
to optimise, then spending some of it rebuilding the compiler ought not be
too much of a problem.

Of course, another option is simply to provide both as installation sets,
and allow the user to select which they desire (sysinst would probably need
some way to be told that those are mutually exclusive).