Re: CD.

[Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

"Christian T. Steigies" <exp114@physik.uni-kiel.de> writes:

> On 15 Jan 1998, Brederlow wrote:
> 
> > Nope, we just recompile the packages as they are. It's still faster
> > afterwards. The optimisation from egcs is better than gcc.
> why not optimize for 060? It'll be even faster then... *NOT*
> or make a version each for 020, 030, 040, 060 *NEITHER*
> forget ecgs and try gcc280. gee, how long will it take you to recompile
> _everything_ with gcc280? ;-)

Compiling everything takes about 3 weeks I would guess. We started
before xmas but had some breaks inbetween (and some updates).

> > function reached'). Pointing out those warnings to the maintainer can
> > help to kill bugs.
> do you?

As fast as I can. We have 30 MB logfiles here and it takes time to
even scan through them. I sent out bugs for admin today, more will
follow. 

> > > the kernel. Linus warns against using egcs for kernel builds. 
> > 
> > Through egcs I was able to track some bugs in my code and one bug in
> > the kernel. That alone makes a reason to recompile with egcs.
> _if_ you build the final kernel with gcc... read again what he said:
> > > the kernel. Linus warns against using egcs for kernel builds. 
> he should know better than you.

We build the kernel with egcs as a test before xmas and since then the 
machine compiling hasn't been shut down. The kernel seems to work fine 
for us, so there is no reason to reboot with a different one.

The kernel for the CD will be gcc compiled or egcs compiled and
optimised for the various CPUs. Of cause the gcc one for 020-060 will
be the default, but if one whishes he can choose a 060 optimised one
or even an egcs compiled one. An adequate warning will be there for
the dumb user.

May the Source be with you.
			Mrvn


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .