| 1 |
On 7/18/05, John J. Foster <Gentoo-User@××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> A few weeks ago I read in one of the newgroups a way to greatly decrease |
| 3 |
> compilation times. The author noted that this was particularly noticable |
| 4 |
> when working with something like OO. The general jist of it was to |
| 5 |
> create temporary file system in memory and mount your portage tmpdir |
| 6 |
> there. For the life of me, I can't find that thread anymore. Does anyone |
| 7 |
> do something similar to this? Are there noticable gains to be had. I |
| 8 |
> have an Athlon 2800XP and 1 GB ram. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I am not sure if this will give a tremendous speedup. Granted, the |
| 11 |
source files won't need to be read from disk, which is an advantage, |
| 12 |
however, the file reading time should be very small compared to the |
| 13 |
time it takes for the compiler to translate the source code into |
| 14 |
machine code. |
| 15 |
Also, there's the ammount of memory you will lose, memory that could |
| 16 |
be used by the compiler. In some cases, gcc can eat very big chunks of |
| 17 |
memory. |
| 18 |
And if you use -pipe in your cflags, the gcc output isn't really |
| 19 |
written to disk during the various stages of compilation. Instead, |
| 20 |
it's piped through the processes. |
| 21 |
Well... maybe someone will give you some accurate results. |
| 22 |
Just my 2c. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Bruno Lustosa, aka Lofofora | Email: bruno@×××××××.net |
| 26 |
Network Administrator/Web Programmer | ICQ: 1406477 |
| 27 |
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil | |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives