Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@bk.bosch.de>
Date: 02/09/1999 19:13:03
Jason Thorpe wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:29:00 -0800 (PST)
> Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Module Name: src
> > Committed By: tv
> > Date: Tue Feb 9 15:29:00 UTC 1999
> > Modified Files:
> > src/gnu/usr.bin/egcs/common: Makefile
> > Removed Files:
> > src/gnu/usr.bin/egcs/common: shlib_version
> > Log Message:
> > Revert to static libcc1. It's acutally a bit faster on most applications
> > (that do not mix languages).
> No! Please make it a shared library once again! I'm sorry, but I am
Hmm, I thought we had a discussion on this before :-)
Just to make it clear from the start, we are talking about
libcc1 NOT libc
> willing to take a slight run-time penalty on the _compiler_ (of all things)
> if it means I can save a fair chunk of disk space (and memory, if I'm doing
> multiple compiles at once).
How much disk space are you going to save? I think you'll only save the
diskspace for each language you have a compiler for, right?
And you only save memory, if you use multiple compilers for different
languages at the same time. If you use the same compiler concurrently,
you don't save anything with a shared libcc1. Instead, you might even
use more for the handling of the shared lib.
> In fact, the disk space savings of shared libcc1 is downright critical
> to get the compiler to fit on some of our platforms!
Huh, which platforms are these?
> If _you_ want to eliminate the run-time startup cost of shared libraries,
> _you_ can build your system with LDSTATIC=-static.
I think, this was just a misunderstanding.