compile speed on lfs 5.0

mrnobby no at spam.please
Fri May 7 11:16:25 PDT 2004

"John Gay" <johngay at> wrote in message
news:200405052326.03772.johngay at
> On Wed 05 May 2004 23:18, mrnobby wrote:
> > > Just the thought.
> >
> > Thanks, unfortunatley, it was not only gcc, it was *all* packages
> > created for stage 1. They were all 2x longer to within a few
> > I'm not bothering with stage 2 until I fathom this out.
> >
> You mis-understood what I was saying. gcc in my LFS host is what is
> slower than the gcc in the RedHat host. Therefore 'all' package builds
> be slower, not just the gcc build.

I see, I presume this is because the version in LFS is newer and weighed
down with more features?

> > I'm wondering if RH has some sort of special optimizer (caching???)
> > if they have they would have to make it available under the gnu
> > wouldn't they?
> >
> RedHat is running a different version of gcc. Also, RedHat is
notorious for
> patching the hell out of gcc. At one time they were running a
> incompatible version of gcc which shared the same rev numbers and this
> created quite a bit of backlash between RedHat and gcc.
> However, once the software is built, it should run at least as fast,
if not
> faster. It's just that your compile times will be longer. And that is
> assuming that I am right in thinking it's the different versions.
RH 7.0 has got to be at least 2-4 years old.

> Do you still have your RedHat host on the system? You could run a few
> compiles between the RedHat host and the LFS host to see if it may be
> problem. Also, knowing what versions of gcc were on the RedHat host
nad your
> LFS host will help people here answer if this is the reason.
Unfortunately not, I got cocky and deleted it once I got LFS up and
running. Now, it *is* only a 'breadboard' system so I could wipe it and
start over. The LFS 5.0 gcc version is 3.3.1. I'll have to find out the
RH 7.0 version. Or someone may know off hand.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Mr Nobby

More information about the lfs-support mailing list