On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Terrence Enger <ten...@iseries-guru.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 12:56 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > >> 2/ I had a spike in IRC questions/confusions from new tentative >> contributors on that topic, so I wanted to make it as newbie friendly >> as possible. iow a 'just fscking work' approach. > > Cache compression is advertised as saving space in the cache in return > for a modest increase in compilation time. For me, it is the clear > choice: I see the improved cache usage, and I do not notice the > increased time.
Well, my boxes are usually cpu bound (even with a fully hot ccache) and I have plenty of space for my ccache, so that is not that clear a choice to me. > > I wonder if any of our hackers using ccache would have the contrary > opinion. IOW, should our configuration enable compression > unconditionally? As an option to autogen.sh? (FWIW, I have changed > my local set_soenv.in to enable compression unconditionally, and I > have completed one successful build.) you can set that up with an env variable right ? so you can easily make ccache behave the way you want, 'automatically', for you. (i.e export CCACHE_COMPRESS=1 in your bashrc) I don't do that in configure for the same reason we don't change CCACHE_DIR or the cache dir size. Using ccache if available is one thing... but trying to 'auto-magically' optimize ccache is another can of worms altogether... Norbert _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
