On 29 Jan 2004, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:31:40AM -0500, Benjamin S. Scarlet wrote: > > It seems to me that it _might_ be possible to get more for less by > > hooking distcc into gcc differently, at the expense of not distributing > > the assembly. > > There's a project attempting to do that here: > > http://freshmeat.net/projects/cachecc1/ > > I haven't looked at it at all, so I have no idea how well it works. > (The page says "Beta".) The cachecc1 site appears to be down at the > moment, though...
Well, that's not quite the same thing; it hooks in through some kind of preload rather than through the normal mechanism. And I think that is replacing ccache rather than distcc, but you could hook it in a the same point. It would probably not take a very big change to distcc to do it. In fact, it probably wouldn't take any change to distcc, you could do it just by installing it with the right changes. I still don't understand why Benjamin thinks it would be a good idea. I was talking to bje at lunchtime and realized that the cc1 technique probably won't work with modern gcc versions, which may default to using the integrated cpp. -- Martin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
