Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Henry B. Hotz wrote:
>> >> Well, why do we have it enabled at all? If it's to speed compilation, we
>> >> may as well enable it on other platforms where -pipe works, of which
>> >> Linux is one.
>> >
>> >My gcc 2.95.3 manual says:
>> >
>> > -pipe Use pipes rather than temporary files for communi-
>> > cation between the various stages of compilation.
>> > This fails to work on some systems where the assem-
>> > bler cannot read from a pipe; but the GNU assembler
>> > has no trouble.
>> >
>> >so it looks like we can't use it on all platforms without testing. I
>> >will enable it for linux. Do people want to test other platforms?
>>
>> It should work on any platform that uses the GNU tools, so that means
>> *BSD is in the same boat as Linux.
>>
>> Does it really speed compilation though? I saw somewhere that it
>> didn't make much difference and might even hurt sometimes.
>
> I saw a 5 second improvement with -pipe on a 150 second full compile of
> PostgreSQL. However, I have a MFS /tmp. I suppose if I didn't, it
> would be slower. However, the difference is so small as to be
> meaningless. Can someone else test on another *BSD and report?
>
Also, IIRC you have a dual processor box. In that case using -pipe helps
to utilize 2 CPU's (not much though), whereas on a single CPU system it
forces extra context switches that aren't necessary when running the
stages sequential.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #