From: Ian Hastie <ianh@iahastie.clara.net>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: support of older compilers
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:36:26 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1
Cc: Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <41894779.10706@techsource.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0411041050040.1229@gradall.private.brainfood.com> <200411041704.iA4H4sdZ014948@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
In-Reply-To: <200411041704.iA4H4sdZ014948@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200411041936.27100.ianh@iahastie.local.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 26

On Thursday 04 Nov 2004 17:04, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:50:38 CST, Adam Heath said:
> > I didn't deny the speed difference of older and newer compilers.
> >
> > But why is this an issue when compiling a kernel?  How often do you
> > compile your kernel?
>
> If you're working on older hardware (note the number of people on this
> list still using 500mz Pentium3 and similar), and a kernel developer, the
> difference between 2 hours to build a kernel and 4 hours to build a
> kernel matters quite a bit.

How often is it necessary to do a full rebuild of the kernel?  If the 
dependencies in the make system work properly then only the amended parts 
should be recompiled.  That'd be a much bigger time saving than just using an 
older compiler.

-- 
Ian.

EOM
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/