On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 28 April 2008, Dave Bender wrote: >> That is currently the solution I use for x86. The drawbacks are >> slower compilation performance (cross compilers running on 64 bit >> empirically seem faster) and other overhead caused by chrooting. The >> approach also does not extend to other architectures like ARM. >> Essentially this approach is a lightweight emulation; taken to its >> fullest extent you would be running QEMU to build for these other >> architectures. > > you could distcc with the host system. i dont know about "other overhead
That's an interesting suggestion, I'll look into it. > caused by chrooting" though ... being in a chroot really adds no overhead at > all. while you can argue the non-native point if you were targeting When I use 32bit chroots, some factor slows down file I/O a great deal. For example I notice that emerge -uDN takes much longer to do in a 32bit chroot. I use mount bind to share the /usr/portage directory with the chroot, so I don't think its that mechanism. All I know is that updating inside the chroot is much slower. > something non-native, Matthijs point is pretty clear: since you can easily do > native, you probably should as over all it will be a much smoother > development cycle. Of course working natively always presents the fewest headaches. What bugs me is that it seems so easy from the Embedded Handbook... > -mike > -- [email protected] mailing list
