5 ms·
The way I solved the autoconf problem was that you have one arm machine do the actual building and a cluster of powerful x86 machines running distcc with cross
by icefox 15y ago
The way I solved the autoconf problem was that you have one arm machine do the actual building and a cluster of powerful x86 machines running distcc with cross compilers. So this way it builds really fast and the package build system thinks it is native without any problems.
Honestly a little surprised this would be news. Doesn't everyone have an arm cluster or a distcc type setup like the above?
Edit: Back when mac's were PPC I did the same trick and had a handful of x86 Linux box's with apple's gcc setup for cross compiling running with distcc. Made the OS X builds run much faster.
- wolf550e 15y agoHow does distcc insteract with link time optimization?
- SeveredCross 15y agoLinking is done on the target box, and not on the distcc builders, so link-time optimization should be unaffected.
- wolf550e 15y agoIf by "unaffected" you mean "correct", then yes, as long as it is set up correctly for cross-compilation (I mean the compiler and assembler, which are unused on the target box in non-LTO mode). But with GCC LTO, distcc will only distribute the parsing of the source code while the optimization and code generation will be done on the target box, so the speedup gain with distcc will be much smaller (LTO makes the ratio of work that parallelizable to work that is non-parallelizable much lower). GCC LTO partitions the work, if it can interact with distcc it can distribute optimization too, at the cost of some missed optimizations. I don't know if that does the right thing in GCC 4.6.0