On 4/24/06, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have the SBU numbers been updated at all since 6.1 or 6.1.1? If not, > those book versions still use gcc 3.4. If gcc 4's bootstrap takes a lot > longer than gcc 3.4's did, then that could explain the higher SBUs when > building gcc 4.
gcc-4 bootstrap is definitely longer. Possibly a lot longer, but I don't have numbers to back it up. I just checked and gcc-pass1 in stable has...4.4 SBUs. They weren't updated going to gcc-4. But, I suppose those numbers have just been ignored until the book is polished for release. > Of course this won't affect other packages unless gcc 4 also compiles > slower and binutils was built with gcc 3. I've never tested it, but I did read that gcc-4 compiles slower than gcc-3. Although, the resulting binaries are supposed to have better performance. > (There was another issue with SBUs way back when the book first moved to > gcc 3. IIRC gcc 2 compiled stuff faster than gcc 3, so a gcc2 distro > built the static bash (or binutils, whichever it was) faster than a gcc3 > distro did. And since chapter 6 used gcc 3, the SBU numbers got skewed > when the user used one the "wrong" host compiler.) Good point. Although, to me, I don't care if the SBUs are slightly skewed. I'm more interested in a ballpark figure. The situation you describe doesn't seem like it would have that drastic of an effect on more than a couple packages. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
