From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jun 11 14:46:43 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA19727
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 11 Jun 1995 14:46:43 -0700
Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA19721
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 11 Jun 1995 14:46:40 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.11/8.6.11) id PAA16816; Sat, 10 Jun 1995 15:46:01 -0600
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 1995 15:46:01 -0600
From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199506102146.PAA16816@trout.sri.MT.net>
To: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: performance...
In-Reply-To: <199506112032.NAA01566@rah.star-gate.com>
References: <199506112032.NAA01566@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> Not bad,  on the 1.x days I used to get about 7 to 8 minutes to
> compile my kernel.

That was when we were using gcc1.  We haven't been using it since the
1.1 days.

> and on the early days of FreeBSD 2.0 it was
> like 13 minutes or so. I now that this is not very 
> scientific .

Hmm, this one is hard to understand.


Nate