| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
>> i had noticed that distcc is peevish about CFLAGS: these should be |
| 3 |
>> compatible on both client and server. in my case i made these similar on |
| 4 |
>> both machines (laptop is core2duo and desktop is core2quad; both are |
| 5 |
>> running amd64 arch) |
| 6 |
> I don't think this is true - as long as the CHOST is identical, there should |
| 7 |
> be no problem. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
CHOST defines the arch (i686, amd64, arm ..) whilst CFLAGS control gcc behavior |
| 10 |
and the binary code generation produced by compiler. in my case core2quad |
| 11 |
(q8300) i'm using in the desktop supports sse4.1 instruction set and notebook |
| 12 |
powered with core2duo (t7600) does not have that cpu feature. having option |
| 13 |
`-msse4.1' set in CFLAGS at desktop side will causes frequent compilation |
| 14 |
failures (initiated by distcc) or, in worst case - arbitrary crashes at notebook |
| 15 |
when running binaries compiled in distributed distcc environment |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> yet another way to install packages on weak notebook running it on the |
| 18 |
>> same arch as desktop runs, - is to create binaries at powerful machine |
| 19 |
>> (while emerging or with quickpkg utility) and share $PKGDIR with laptop |
| 20 |
> This means some extra work, and also use flags need to be compatible, but |
| 21 |
> the speedup would be much bigger than with just distcc. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What about exporting the whole root file system and mounting it on the fast |
| 24 |
> desktop, chrooting and emerging? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
i do not insist the distcc is the only or most efficient way to maintain gentoo |
| 28 |
installation on a slow machine (having something more powerful nearby). just |
| 29 |
tried to explain how does distcc work |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
victor |
Archives