| 1 |
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:14:41 -0300, Bruno Lustosa wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > A few weeks ago I read in one of the newgroups a way to greatly |
| 4 |
> > decrease compilation times. The author noted that this was |
| 5 |
> > particularly noticable when working with something like OO. The |
| 6 |
> > general jist of it was to create temporary file system in memory and |
| 7 |
> > mount your portage tmpdir there. For the life of me, I can't find |
| 8 |
> > that thread anymore. Does anyone do something similar to this? Are |
| 9 |
> > there noticable gains to be had. I have an Athlon 2800XP and 1 GB ram. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I am not sure if this will give a tremendous speedup. Granted, the |
| 12 |
> source files won't need to be read from disk, which is an advantage, |
| 13 |
> however, the file reading time should be very small compared to the |
| 14 |
> time it takes for the compiler to translate the source code into |
| 15 |
> machine code. |
| 16 |
> Also, there's the ammount of memory you will lose, memory that could |
| 17 |
> be used by the compiler. In some cases, gcc can eat very big chunks of |
| 18 |
> memory. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Not to mention the OOo ebuild needing around 3GB of space in TMPDIR, so |
| 21 |
this approach would only result in the emerge failing quicker. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Capt'n! The spellchecker kinna take this abuse! |
Archives