Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:25:16 +1100 From: tridge@samba.org To: Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@schweikhardt.net> Cc: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, sobomax@portaone.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD ccache port is wonderfiul! Message-ID: <17286.19420.469358.628281@samba.org> In-Reply-To: <20051124230220.GB1923@schweikhardt.net> References: <200511210625.16973.ringworm01@gmail.com> <cb5206420511210825v7b4dc852jf3f29f325d8ed7fd@mail.gmail.com> <20051124182645.GA1923@schweikhardt.net> <17286.14954.340289.972852@samba.org> <20051124230220.GB1923@schweikhardt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jens, > I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "not use compiler > bootstrapping". It's a non-optional part of the FreeBSD build and I like > to start from scratch. A new world *must* build, install, and use a > temporary environment. My point is that if you are using tricks to defeat the compiler has changed test in ccache, then you are not really using the temporary environment. You are using it for some things, but for some parts of the build you are using an earlier environment. That's why I wondered if there should be a varient of buildworld that uses an existing compiler, rather than using the one built in the temporary environment. It just makes it a little clearer what risks are being taken. I've never actually built freebsd though, so I might be talking through my hat, and feel free to ignore me :-) > Here it's > schweikh@hal9000:~ $ ll /usr/local/libexec/ccache/bin > total 486 > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 77296 Nov 9 22:35 c++ > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4080 Nov 9 22:35 c89 > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4380 Nov 9 22:35 c99 > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 164956 Nov 9 22:35 cc > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 77296 Nov 13 16:27 g++ > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 164956 Nov 13 16:27 gcc that's quite small, and I suspect that the speed of CCACHE_HASH_COMPILER will be good. > Will do, but I'm moving and it may take until January for a definitive > go/no go. no worries. I've put the change in ccache anyway, I'm just curious to know if this is a workable compromise for freebsd. > Yes, I always wondered about that, too. cc1 is the actual binary > responsible for code generation, maybe even the assembler must be > considered. Looking at the compiler driver may give false positives, if > only cc1 or as changes (unlikely, but maybe not just of academic > interest). I've heard of that problem with some gcc developers, who manually install just the 2nd stage or the assembler when they are trying out new techniques. I have thought about having a CCACHE_HASH_LIST option that would take a list of files, but I haven't put it in as I suspect the number of people that need it would be very small, and those probably won't trust a compiler cache anyway :-) > That's great news, thanks! Any plans for a 2.5 release? We are probably about due for one, though the changes since 2.4 are quite small. I'll have a look in my patch queue :-) Cheers, Tridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17286.19420.469358.628281>