lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.1.99 is less rusty
On Sun, 3 May 1998, John Campbell wrote:

> I'm having the same problems with 2.1.9?. My "benchmark" is simpler and
> more subjective than Bill's. I just rebuild the kernel. Under
> 2.0.[29-33] on this particular machine (a 386-40 with 8M of RAM and 10M
> of swap), it takes 3-4 hours to build a kernel. 2.1.9[1-8] couldn't do
> it at all - they'd slow down and finally stall out before finishing
> (maybe they would have eventually finished... I usually interrupted them
> after a few days when the newer kernel came out). 2.1.99 is better - it
> actually finished building the kernel, and it only took it about 7.5
> hours. As I write this, it's doing the "make modules", and has been
> doing so for the last 36 hours.

Woah, it takes me only a hour and half to compile kernel *and* modules for
2.1.98 - I have a 486DX4/100 here. Since the compile process is limited by
the bus throughput (bus, not the CPU itself, is at 33MHz), I have to
wonder why your builds takes so long. What version of binutils/gcc are you
using?

I've noticed an improvement in compiles after I upgraded binutils from
2.8.1.0.15 to 2.9.1.0.3, and rebuilt gcc on top of that.

Cheers,
Alex
--
/\_/\ Legalise cannabis now!
( o.o ) Smoke some cannabis today!
> ^ < Peace, Love, Unity and Respect to all.

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans