On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:05:10 +1300 (NZDT) Derek Smithies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, > Now, I do not follow what/where this thread is going. > > The orignal post described how the kernel had got much larger. > I replied adding observations on the compiler requirements having > increased dramatically. > on the size of graphical applications. > > Is that a whinge? Nope. That is additional evidence for the comment that > things are growing in size. > > yes, you say, buy more ram. Well yes, but that compiler version change I > am referring to happened in 2000 (from memory) and ram was much more > expensive than currently. > > Now, we have moved to idle speculation on how much improvement there was > in the final library. The compiler version changed from 2.95 to 2.96, > which suggests there will not be a significant improvement in performance. > > Was the code twice as fast? Nope. similar speed would be my estimate. It was my understanding that newer versions of gcc implemented more of the relevant iso standard for that language, rather than improving performance per se, although your point about minor versions of the compiler is completely valid (from what I remember, 2.96 was generally thought of as a pile of poo compared to 2.95, and wasn't even supposed to be a legal release, but a development pre-release of 3.0). Gcc is now at 4.x, and it took a really hard push to get off the 2.9x versions in the first place. I haven't tried to use 4 for a kernel build yet, should be a good laugh. > > Derek. > > [snip] The original post was, as Carl mentioned, pointed at the amount of disk space required to build a kernel, and how outrageous it was (IMO). Subsequent posts have made major assumptions about the hardware that people run linux on ( my AP runs on a 486 based sbc, and I can't solder any more memory on to it, for example ), the depth of their pockets and put words into my mouth, so I'm with you on it's direction. All I was really doing was warning people about the required resources to build a released kernel 'sort of' from scratch, using 'sort of' default settings. Downloading 38MB of compressed source is a lot but acceptable, but when it generates over 2GB ( that's well over 50 times ) of output, then I'm taken aback. Steve.
