Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: David Brownlee <abs@anim.dreamworks.com>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 01/03/1999 00:52:59
Wasn't one of the ideas behind going to libcc1.so to share memory
between different passes of the compiler to make using pipes
feasible. (The whole point being to speed up compiling).
The disk space savings have to be pretty small - we currently link
four binaries {cc1,cc1obj,cc1plus,f771} against libcc1 (which is
around 1.4MB on an i386 system). I don't know how much of the
library is used by each binary.
Maybe someone interested enough in this could time their compiles
(static/dynamic normal/-pipe) and let the list know what the
relevant time/diskspace tradeoffs are?
David/absolute
Abandoning a syncing disk... or syncing an abandoned disk?