Re: [ALACPP] GCC and friends

["Jon Stewart" <stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> So, the big penalty with the crypto stuff is that you don't get much
> benefit from DMA transfers, and your paging gets kind of funny. Still,
> whatever works for you.


Right... DMA... um... Do you think there is a performance hit if my swap 
is also encrypted? :-) I hacked my init script to mount root read-only 
first, restore the random seed, and then make swap on the partitions using 
a random key. I guess I've recovered far too many files (and passwords) 
from swap...

Only swap and /home are encrypted, though. Everything else under / is on 
an unencrypted, un-RAIDed disk. It would be interesting to compare 
compiles between the two.


> Believe me, if you think you know what's going on with your system
> when you install Slackware, you'll learn sooo much more when you install
> Gentoo. ;-) From a security standpoint, I think you'll find Gentoo's
> kernel includes a lot more patches for doing security stuff than
> Slackware.


I also find the fine-grained dependency checking in Gentoo intriguing. 
However, I don't buy the "everything's compiled for your particular 
machine, so it's way faster" argument (not that you're making this 
argument :-). In the aggregate, I suspect Gentoo machines have a higher 
load average than machines running binary distros, due to all the 
compiling.

But, hey, Slackware, man. Slack-ware. Instant credibility in the office.


> I dunno. These days >4GB hardly seems like a large file. :-(


Or 100GB disk images. My company's product stores all of its bookmarks in 
RAM; when you bookmark every porn graphic on a 100+ GB drive, 32 bit 
addressing starts to feel the strain.


> > I use SourceSafe at work, and I find that it is no worse than CVS on a 
> > day-to-day basis. Which is pretty sad commentary. :-)
> 
> Yeah, and suggests SourceSafe has improved dramatically since I last
> used it. ;-)

The most common complaint I've heard about SourceSafe from CVS folks is 
that it only supports exclusive locking; this is the default, true, but 
it's really easy to turn off. If you turn it off, you've basically got a 
Windows-only CVS. In my view, they both suck too much.


> I find distcc is awesome for laptop compiles. Typical laptop hard drives
> are so slow that it really hurts build times. Much better to fire a job
> off over to a machine with a real hard disk.


Well, I tried Dan's script on my iMac, and after some pre-requisite 
frustrations (the default installed sed seemed to be broken), got the 
build script going. Unfortunately, gcc seg-faulted part-way through 
the glibc build. I think I should maybe upgrade to Panther, which is 
supposedly less wacky than OS X 10.2. 


> > I'm subscribed to boost-users, and their build environment seems 
> > to be a frequent source of errors for people. Part of this is a lack of 
> > organization, but I can't help but feel that part of it is a reliance on a 
> > non-standard build tool.
> 
> Heck, their version of bjam is different from the regular one. I think
> that's a pretty bad sign. :-(


Yeah. Sometimes Boost is too clever for its own good.


Jon
-- 
Jon Stewart                                 Advanced Los Angeles C++
stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx                           http://www.alacpp.org
_______________________________________________
alacpp mailing list
alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp