Re: Link times

2003-09-10 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: >> >> On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt)

Re: Link times

2003-09-10 Thread Andre Poenitz
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: > >> On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). This > >> is making it somewhat painful to code

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Kuba Ober
On czwartek 04 wrzesień 2003 09:46 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | On czwartek 04 wrzesieÅ„ 2003 08:43 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > >> Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: > >> >> On

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On czwartek 04 wrzesień 2003 08:43 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: >> Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: >> >> On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). >> >>

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Kuba Ober
On czwartek 04 wrzesień 2003 08:43 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: > >> On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). > >> This is making it somewhat painful to code :-( C

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On czwartek 04 wrzesieñ 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: >> On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). This >> is making it somewhat painful to code :-( Could we think about revisiting >> partial linking et al.? > | Unfortunate

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:39:40AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote: > >> I guess it may be worthwhile to look at linker code, try profiling and see >> where it spends most of its time :) > | One big thing is the debug info, and iirc gcc cvs reduces it rather | cons

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread John Levon
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 08:39:40AM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote: > I guess it may be worthwhile to look at linker code, try profiling and see > where it spends most of its time :) One big thing is the debug info, and iirc gcc cvs reduces it rather considerably by discarding unused debug entries ... j

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Kuba Ober
On czwartek 04 wrzesień 2003 09:25 am, Angus Leeming wrote: > On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). This > is making it somewhat painful to code :-( Could we think about revisiting > partial linking et al.? Unfortunately, after looking at it again, it seems that at

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Alfredo Braunstein
Angus Leeming wrote: > On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). > This is making it somewhat painful to code :-( Could we think about > revisiting partial linking et al.? I suggest you use -O2 and --disable-debug for testing... Regards, Alfredo

Re: Link times

2003-09-04 Thread Lars Gullik Bjønnes
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On my 2.7GHz machine the link step now takes 1:27 (xforms), 1:36 (qt). This | is making it somewhat painful to code :-( Could we think about revisiting | partial linking et al.? Last time I did this partial linking (as opposed to linking with the obje