On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 00:24 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: > > > Hmmmmm, this means you effectively end up building GCC 7 times, 3 times in > > GCC-Pass1, 1 time in GCC-Pass2 and 3 times Ch6 GCC. It also means you end > > This just made me think of something else, a mere side point... If CLFS > adopted this technique as well (bootstrapping the final GCC as one last > check to ensure everything's good)
Cross-lfs uses bootstrap for the target systems native compiler. > that would mean that CLFS would > actually be building GCC fewer times (and probably a quicker build, > assuming chroot and no multilib): > > 1 time as Cross GCC Static, 1 time as Cross GCC Shared/Final, 1 time as > the target Temp System GCC, and 3 times as the Final Native build, for a > total of 6. > > In fact, as both books currently stand, CLFS actually builds GCC once > less. So, assuming you're not building multilib, CLFS might actually be > quicker to build than LFS. :) Has anyone recently timed a x86 -> x86 > chroot CLFS build and compared it to the time it takes to build LFS? Heh, I never looked at it that way ;-) Build time wasn't really a consideration when developing cross-lfs... only the end result matters I must admit I never really ever bothered doing a time comparison between the methods (the build takes as long as it takes). Would be interesting to get some figures... Best Regards [R] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
