Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 13:03:03 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: Dan Mack <mack@macktronics.com> Cc: Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: my build time impact of clang 5.0 Message-ID: <CALfReyd8Eqbw4UNtVFvm0exgvD-xmQ50BHuYpfhxeg%2BL6OSdfw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <m2mv58qm0m.fsf@macktronics.com> References: <m2lgktv1pg.fsf@macktronics.com> <1507039968621-0.post@n6.nabble.com> <m2mv58qm0m.fsf@macktronics.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
have you tried meta builds and pkgbase? On 3 October 2017 at 16:38, Dan Mack <mack@macktronics.com> wrote: > Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl> writes: > > > On the other hand, I'm having tremendous increases in Unixbench scores > > comparing to > > 11-STABLE in the April (same machine, clang 4 then, clang 5 now) (about > > 40%). > > > > I have never seen something like that, and I'm running Unixbench on > -STABLE > > since > > 2008. > > Agree; clang/llvm and friends have added a lot of value. It's worth it > I think. > > It is however getting harder to continue with a source based update > model, which I prefer even though most people just use package managers > today. > > I still like to read the commits and understand what's changing, why, > and select the version I am comfortable with given the nuances of my > configuration(s). I think that's why 'knock-on-wood' I've been able to > track mostly CURRENT and/or STABLE without any outages since about 1998 > on production systems :-) > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReyd8Eqbw4UNtVFvm0exgvD-xmQ50BHuYpfhxeg%2BL6OSdfw>