On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 05:50:40PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > I can't think of any that you haven't mentioned. My question is why use a > new linker at all? My understanding is that it may produce files faster, > but to me the link phase of a package is generally quite short compared to > the time it takes ot actually compile the packages. If the compile time is > 10x the link time and you get a 50% speedup (unlikely), you get a 5% overall > reduction in build time. To me that's not significant. > > What am I missing? > > -- Bruce > The many posts on development lists which have _claimed_ that it speeds up the build of random packages.
Like you, I now think it is somewhat unlikely to make a lot of difference - but AFAICS nobody has produced any test results in recent times (a bit like the situation with ninja on cmake builds: that CAN improve a developer's experience (change one file, only the necessary files get rebuilt) but for us it doesn't seem to have any benefit. Puddings, proof, eating. OTOH, even on an essentially idle system it is possible that times might still vary widely. With firefox-53 there is a brief early spike to all cores when it runs rust, and I suppose that means it probably also did a bit of downloading, but it should be brief enough to not matter (famous last words!). ĸen -- I live in a city. I know sparrows from starlings. After that everything is a duck as far as I'm concerned. -- Monstrous Regiment -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
