[SOLVED] Someone *not* using ccache? Why?

karol · 2009-05-31 13:42:39

OK, if the only thing you compile is dwm then you don't need ccache, but if you're playing w/ bigger toys and like to try out different configs for your apps it should speed things up a bit. This questions is also for my beloved Arch devs :-)

Last edited by karol (2009-06-08 22:52:50)

Allan · 2009-05-31 14:01:04

Why not use it.... partially laziness and partially because I don't think it would work for Arch package building methods. I build all my packages in a clean chroot (using makechrootpkg in devtools). So my suspicion is that the cache would be cleaned when the chroot gets cleaned for the next build. Also, the package I build that takes the longest is gcc. I'm really not sure how ccache would do with a compiler bootstrap (and I am fairly sure it is only designed for situations with a constant compiler version...).

bernarcher · 2009-05-31 14:17:08

In earlier times when I had to compile almost everything in order to maintain an LFS system I did make heavy use of ccache. But nowadays when I need to compile some ABS package every now and then only, it is probably overkill. In fact, if you do not repeatedly compile the same stuff over and over again it might even slow down things. (But I did not really check this one.)

Last edited by bernarcher (2009-05-31 14:17:46)

karol · 2009-05-31 14:36:47

@Allan
OK, for gcc it may be better to just let it compile the usual way.
Is there a way to share ccache between chroots? Does it make them "unclean" (I'd guess so)?

@bernarcher
I was recompiling vim, mplayer and xorg a couple times, learning the ropes wrt Arch, ABS and PKGBUILD. I plan to set up a second Arch box w/ a vanilla setup, no manual compilation (if I can just copy my dwm) and see how much HAL and *kits help / get in the way.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-31 13:42:39