Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:18:18 +1100 From: tridge@samba.org To: "Andrew P." <infofarmer@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Jens Schweikhardt <schweikh@schweikhardt.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD ccache port is wonderfiul! Message-ID: <17286.15402.847667.873734@samba.org> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420511241125y717aacc2kaa5bc0ffc92b7e7c@mail.gmail.com> References: <200511210625.16973.ringworm01@gmail.com> <cb5206420511210825v7b4dc852jf3f29f325d8ed7fd@mail.gmail.com> <20051124182645.GA1923@schweikhardt.net> <cb5206420511241125y717aacc2kaa5bc0ffc92b7e7c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew, > By saying "to go into production" I meant this: > ccache is based on such a great idea, that it is > a wonder that it haven't been integrated into > build processes such as buildworld or even gcc > itself yet. As we can see, there are some problems > with using ccache in production. I think its more a matter of people finding that the compiler bootstrapping process used in buildworld is not necessary in some cases. But there are cases where it is necessary, and then the various tricks used to avoid it come unstuck. As I suggested to Jens, there should perhaps be a way to disable the bootstrapping in buildworld, then when people get a build failure with the bootstrapping off they can try again with full compiler bootstrapping (which will be slower of course). Meanwhile, the CCACHE_HASH_COMPILER patch I just put in should give a bit better compromise than the previous tricks being used. Still not perfect, but perhaps less likely to fail for the freebsd build. Cheers, Tridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17286.15402.847667.873734>