Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:15:01 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: sos@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Am I wrong or is this just stupid? Message-ID: <199608231615.KAA06985@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <20809.840815838@time.cdrom.com> References: <199608230836.KAA17678@ra.dkuug.dk> <20809.840815838@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan K. Hubbard writes: > > Hmm, I guess its because we wan't to build our tools etc, with the > > newest version.. This would resolve some (but not all) bootstrap > > problems in the tools... > > But you would anyway. Once you've done the bootstrap, the new tools > are installed and leaving the binaries in the tree won't change a > thing - everything subsequent will still be linked with the new copies. But they won't be re-built with the new 'build-tools', which may have bugs in them such as the -O2 -fno-strength-reduce bugs fixed a while back. So, the lib-tools will be buggy if the build-tools are buggy. > Like I said, I think there's no logical reason at all for this. There *is* a logical reason, but it's not always necessary when the build-tools don't change. But, generally speaking they do change between releases, although they haven't since 2.0.5, but will change in 2.2 I suspect, so it will be relevant there. > Furthermore, here's my make world time for the standard tree: > > 6366.76 real 4213.03 user 711.55 sys > > And for a tree which has make depend and make all combined: > > 6189.28 real 4215.11 user 706.74 sys > < 3% isn't much for the possibility of getting buggy lib-tools, which could theoretically affect things adversely. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608231615.KAA06985>