compile speed on lfs 5.0

Kevin Alm kevinalm at
Fri May 7 14:34:11 PDT 2004

On Friday 07 May 2004 03:19 pm, Ken Moffat wrote:

>  RH 7.0 was probably gcc-2.95.3.  I installed RH 6.0 the other week on
> one box, and that has egcs (2.91.66).  Might use that for testing, but
> I've still go to upgrade it to a 2.4 kernel.  Sometime they went to what
> they called gcc-2.96 which was "interesting" (and broken in the initial
> versions), but I assume that was after 7.0 (I was using mdk in those
> days).

Iirc, rh 7.x used 2.96-xxx, which was a heavily patced, customized rh version 
of 2.95.
>  Now, gcc-2.95.3 is a rocket compared to any of the gcc-3.3 family.

Likewise was 2.96. Remember all those movie clips of NASA's early rocket's in 
the Sputnik era blowing up on pad. The out of the box gcc supplied with 7.0 
was pretty bad. I'd go with at least rh 8.0. ;)

More information about the lfs-support mailing list