Neil wrote: > Michael Vincent van Rantwijk wrote: > >> I mean what is usually the bottleneck for compilers? HD, RAM, OS? > > It's a combination of factors. > > The build system itself involves launching subprocesses, checking > datestamps and such. This is faster on Linux than it is on Windows, > although MSYS is slightly better than Cygwin in this respect. (Interix > is faster than MSYS, but unsupported.) In particular you'll see more of > a relative benefit of a fast HD on Windows.
Do I need Cygwin for Linux and MS-Windows or only on the latter? I have a SATA-2 HD in my notebook, but I still want to add a RAM drive for the compiler, and this is supported for both Linux and MS-Windows I'm told. Is this correct? > Compilation and linking is generally a mixture of CPU and HD. This is > demonstrated by the fact that a parallel make is slightly faster than a > standard make as while one file is being read from the disk the > processor can usefully continue to compile a separate file. Are there any compilers that are supported by the build process *and* support dual or Intel CoreDuo2 processors? > However linking debug is the killer, particularly gklayout (non-static) > or libxul (xulrunner static) or the final executable (static). For > gklayout you must have 512MB of RAM - it can (eventually) be done in > 384MB but it wears your disk out (literally - I found out the hard way.) > For the others, or if you want to use your computer while you're > linking, you probably need twice as much. I now have 1GB RAM in my notebook, but that will be extended/replaced to support a RAM drive. That should speed up everything, right? Thanks for all the info! _______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
