>Not that I'm really complaining: you can get quite a lot of mileage >out of multiple CPUs as it is, more than enough (in my opinion) to >justify purchasing some nice build servers by software shops that do a >lot of GCC work. (I won't post the actual bootstrap times out of fear >of being lynched.) This might show up more as people start moving >towards dual-core and/or multiple CPU systems even on the low end.
<minor-rant> That's great if the software can be cross-built. As it is, cross-building a toolchain requires a lot of extra work, and if it weren't for Dan Kegel's commitment, I'd dare say near impossible. I've watched the sometimes near-indifference to the problems we have trying to put together toolchains for non-hosted environments. Even when I have a cross-toolchain, its still a *long* uphill battle since there are too many OSS packages out there that can't cross-configure/compile (openssh, perl as examples off the top of my head) without a *lot* of work. Its just that it takes a lot of time and work to cross-build a non-x86 linux environment to verify any changes in the toolchain. And comments like "get a faster machine" are a non-starter. </minor-rant> -- Peter Barada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
