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    [W:0.021 / U:1.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site