Why aren't we using -pipe? It can significantly speed up compiles by not
writing temp files (intermediate files).
I don't see harm in adding this?
What do you all think?
Shawn.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 12:22:13AM -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
> Why aren't we using -pipe? It can significantly speed up compiles by not
> writing temp files (intermediate files).
Most architectures already uses -pipe - see arch/*/Makefile:
[sam@mars v2.5]$ ls arch/*/Makefile | xargs grep -l -- -pipe | wc -l
17
[sam@mars v2.5]$ ls arch/*/Makefile | wc -l
21
Sam
> Why aren't we using -pipe? It can significantly speed up compiles by not
> writing temp files (intermediate files).
I thought we were. Do you have results to show it speeds up kernel
compiles? I found the opposite when using ext2:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0212.1/0040.html
Anton
Nevermind, We are using pipe, I just didn't see due to the new Makefile
output (V=1) shows me we are using pipe, at least for ia32.
Shawn S.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Blanchard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:30 AM
To: Shawn Starr
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Speeding up Linux kernel compiles using -pipe?
> Why aren't we using -pipe? It can significantly speed up compiles by
> not writing temp files (intermediate files).
I thought we were. Do you have results to show it speeds up kernel compiles?
I found the opposite when using ext2:
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0212.1/0040.html
Anton
At 09:01 PM 6/25/2003 -0400, Shawn Starr wrote:
>Nevermind, We are using pipe, I just didn't see due to the new Makefile
>output (V=1) shows me we are using pipe, at least for ia32.
Unless something has changed recently, -pipe is actually a slowdown.
-Mike