From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Sat Apr 15 14:54:02 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB24D3FDC6;
 Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:02 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org",
 Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2171758;
 Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:01 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org)
Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id 2E9DB539B; Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:01 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Matthew Rezny <rezny@freebsd.org>
Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net>,
 Johannes M Dieterich <jmd@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: FYI: what it takes for RAM+swap to build devel/llvm40 with 4
 processors or cores and WITH__DEBUG= (powerpc64 example)
Message-ID: <20170415145401.GH97090@FreeBSD.org>
References: <3EDEF0B7-59C5-4648-9737-6682E18645BC@dsl-only.net>
 <2502554.oHoOYGyFJH@workstation.reztek>
 <20170405161541.GA32323@FreeBSD.org>
 <2629274.jcOtFEnjsX@workstation.reztek>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2629274.jcOtFEnjsX@workstation.reztek>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 14:54:02 -0000

Sorry Matthew, forgot to reply to this one.

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:01:35PM +0200, Matthew Rezny wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 April 2017 16:15:41 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > ...
> > Hmm, I don't quite get it: shouldn't static linking actually increase
> > the binaries (and thus the package) size?
> 
> I might have reversed static and shared somewhere in the linking
> explanation, or not properly described the situation. [...]

Understood, makes sense now.

> There was a brief period in which llvm39 was fully switched to dynamic
> linking, which made it considerably smaller but caused runtime problems
> (and was also likely to be slower).

That still sounds like the most sane way to go; provided those problems
are/would be fixed, I hope for that switch to happen again one day.  (I
somewhat doubt that "slower" was noticeable enough to worry about.)

> The best solution to cut rebuild time for LLVM is ccache.

Indeed, ccache helps greatly.  Now that I've managed to cut down package
times as well, situation with LLVM ports no longer looks as bad as I
originally saw it; thank you.

./danfe