Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: David Brownlee <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 01/03/1999 00:52:59
	Wasn't one of the ideas behind going to to share memory
	between different passes of the compiler to make using pipes
	feasible. (The whole point being to speed up compiling).

	The disk space savings have to be pretty small - we currently link
	four binaries {cc1,cc1obj,cc1plus,f771} against libcc1 (which is
	around 1.4MB on an i386 system). I don't know how much of the
	library is used by each binary.

	Maybe someone interested enough in this could time their compiles
	(static/dynamic normal/-pipe) and let the list know what the
	relevant time/diskspace tradeoffs are?


	Abandoning a syncing disk... or syncing an abandoned disk?