compile speed on lfs 5.0

mrnobby no at spam.please
Fri May 7 15:58:21 PDT 2004


"Kevin Alm" <kevinalm at shenessex.heartland.net> wrote in message
news:200405071634.11740.kevinalm at shenessex.heartland.net...
> 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. ;)
I'd like to have done newer but I am doing various LFS 5.0 speed tests,
all to be compared with my 386/20 build
(http://www.manik.mina.dsl.pipex.com/lfsbuild/index.html) so
unfortunately I could not use version 8.0.

Mr Nobby.





More information about the lfs-support mailing list