Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!helena.MT.net!nate From: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Suggestion on recompiling kernel Date: 13 Mar 1995 05:57:38 GMT Organization: SRI Intl. - Montana Lines: 33 Message-ID: <3k0msi$dul@helena.MT.net> References: <3jm3eb$dkl@news.bu.edu> <MICHAELV.95Mar8223323@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> <3jnskq$f5f@agate.berkeley.edu> <hastyD5CwJy.1J3@netcom.com> Reply-To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sneezy.sri.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trout.sri.mt.net In article <hastyD5CwJy.1J3@netcom.com>, Amancio Hasty Jr <hasty@netcom.com> wrote: > >>In article <MICHAELV.95Mar8223323@MindBender.HeadCandy.com>, >>Michael L. VanLoon <michaelv@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> wrote: >>> >>>It only takes me 23 minutes to do a *complete* clean build of a kernel > >So compiling a kernel in 23 minutes is good ?? > >Say cut the compilation time in half and we could be back to the >good old 386bsd days. And then we'd use up more disk space since the *only* reason the builds take twice as long is the upgrade from gcc1 -> gcc2, which allowed us to build shared libraries. (I can say this since I was one of the biggest opponents to the gcc2 upgrade and only gave in when shlibs came along.) GCC 2 is great compiler, but it's a pig for using up resources. There has been interest in the past of making it smaller, but no-one with interest has got the time to do it and those with the time don't have the ability. Sigh... Nate -- nate@FreeBSD.org | Do you think SRI cares what I say? They certainly nate@sneezy.sri.com | don't accept responsibility for my actions, so I work #: (406) 449-7662 | obviously don't represent them on Usenet. home #: (406) 443-7063 | *FreeBSD core member and all around tech. weenie*