Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:34:23 -0700 From: garys@opusnet.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig?= <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How do I use ccache and ports? Message-ID: <pl3bpllhow.bpl@mail.opusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <42F6329D.9050803@cs.tu-berlin.de> =?iso-8859-1?q?=28Bj=F6rn_K=F6nig's?= message of "Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:11:09 %2B0200") References: <7093dffb050807030255a2dbdd@mail.gmail.com> <42F5FB48.4020804@cs.tu-berlin.de> <d5r7d5lsay.7d5@mail.opusnet.com> <42F6329D.9050803@cs.tu-berlin.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Björn König <bkoenig@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes: > Because these are compilers, not compiler caches. I suppose it's not the task of a compiler to speed up the build > process, but rather producing good binaries from source code. I think of the Unix dogma "one task, one tool". GCC violates that one almost as much as Emacs. :) GNU is Not Unix, it seems. And I'm guessing that compilers use lots of caches; GCC just hasn't (yet) bought into optionally maintaining some caches between invocations to keep things simple, so the manpage is only 2600 lines.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?pl3bpllhow.bpl>