compile speed on lfs 5.0

Ken Moffat ken at
Fri May 7 16:10:10 PDT 2004

On Fri, 7 May 2004, Kevin Alm wrote:

> 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. ;)
LOL.  If it was 2.96, it needs to be updated to <fx> scratches head
</fx> at least -80 if my memory serves, or basically as late as you can
find in an rpm on a mirror somewhere.  And that's just for building 2.4
kernels!  The mirror at is showing RPMs for 2.96-54 for
7.0 and 2.96-98 for 7.2.  Don't know if the -98 rpm will apply to 7.0,
but if you want to use 7.0 you have three choices -

a) use it as-is, and expect breakages.
b) use the latest available 2.96, either by cleanly upgrading the rpm,
or by compiling it from the srpm.
c) compile gcc-2.95.3 - as long as you bootstrap it, 2.96 should be able
to build it ok.

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the lfs-support mailing list