From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Mar 17 12:46:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA03663
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA03647
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 12:46:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asterix.xs4all.nl (root@asterix.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.11]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.7.6/XS4ALL) with ESMTP id VAA27931; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:46:25 +0100 (MET)
Received: from plm.xs4all.nl (uucp@localhost) by asterix.xs4all.nl (8.7.5/8.7.2) with UUCP id VAA15311; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 21:45:01 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from plm@localhost) by plm.xs4all.nl (8.8.5/8.7.3) id JAA00453; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:44:42 +0100 (MET)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:44:42 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199703160844.JAA00453@plm.xs4all.nl>
From: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Wolfgang Helbig <helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De>
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: why /usr/libexec/cc* static?
In-Reply-To: <199703151029.LAA01247@helbig.informatik.ba-stuttgart.de>
References: <87n2s5msv9.fsf@plm.xs4all.nl>
	<199703151029.LAA01247@helbig.informatik.ba-stuttgart.de>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 11:29:43 +0100 (MET), Wolfgang Helbig
>> <helbig@MX.BA-Stuttgart.De> said:

    >> I noted that /usr/libexec/cc* (the C compiler passes) are linked
    >> statically, and wonder why? cpp and cc itself are linked dynamically,
    >> so it's not as if one could recompile libc in case something would be
    >> wrong with libc.so etc.
    >> 

    WH> Here is the answer:

    WH> (cvs log Makefile ...)

    WH> RCS file: /usr/cvsroot/src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1/Makefile,v
    WH> Working file: Makefile
    WH> [...]
    WH> head: 1.11
    WH> [...]
    WH> ----------------------------
    WH> revision 1.7
    WH> date: 1995/10/01 20:16:27;  author: davidg;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -1
    WH> Build cc1 nonshared. This actually results in it consuming 40K *less* disk
    WH> space and improves compile times by a few percent.
    WH> ----------------------------

Thanks for pointing this out.

Strange. How is it possible that a nonshared cc1 is smaller? 

I guess the faster compiles are only true when enough memory is
available. If paging is going on, than the cc1 executable is not fully
cached and using shared code will help (?)

-- 
 /\_/\
( o.o ) Peter Mutsaers  |  Abcoude (Utrecht), |  Trust is a good quality
 ) ^ (  plm@xs4all.nl   |  the Netherlands    |  for other people to have