Pierre Labastie wrote: > Le 25/09/2013 21:35, William Harrington a écrit : >> Greetings, >> >> I was wondering why cross-tools was taking longer than usual and the >> SBU was off. >> >> I noticed that during the building of the Makefile that cross-tools >> isn't included in the optimizations which add the MAKEFLAG variable. >> >> In cross-tools we don't want optimizations, yet, so just the makeflags. >> >> I ran through all of the different combinations of optimize options >> (including what I added) and all seems well. >> >> You can tell at line 120 that is in the cross-tools part of the make >> file creation and I only have it adding the makeflags when OPTIMIZE is >> 3 which is OPT_3 from Config.in. >> [...patch...] > Will commit your patch (since I have a limited ability to test CLFS, and > that patch only affects CLFS, I trust you). The question is whether we > should have a similar mechanism for LFS (possiblity to build chapter 5 > with makeflags only while building chapter 6 with makeflags and > optimization, which is not possible presently AFAICT). > > Another related and more general question is whether "make install" > shouldn't always be run with -j1. > Since the bottleneck is mainly I/O during installation, I would expect > that the performance would not be significantly degraded. OTH, in some > cases, packages which build OK with make -jN do not always install (see > http://lists.cross-lfs.org/pipermail/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org/2013-September/001720.html). > It would be easy to change that in command generation. > > What do the others think ?
My builds are generally, but not always, for testing before updating the book. In that case, I always want -j1 for timing. I never change optimization because I don't think the changes are discernible without instrumentation. As long as these are the defaults, I have no objection to making the changes. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
