CLFS and Optimizations and MAKEFLAGS
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 08:21:52 PDT 2013
Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Le 25/09/2013 21:35, William Harrington a écrit :
>> I was wondering why cross-tools was taking longer than usual and the
>> SBU was off.
>> I noticed that during the building of the Makefile that cross-tools
>> isn't included in the optimizations which add the MAKEFLAG variable.
>> In cross-tools we don't want optimizations, yet, so just the makeflags.
>> I ran through all of the different combinations of optimize options
>> (including what I added) and all seems well.
>> You can tell at line 120 that is in the cross-tools part of the make
>> file creation and I only have it adding the makeflags when OPTIMIZE is
>> 3 which is OPT_3 from Config.in.
> Will commit your patch (since I have a limited ability to test CLFS, and
> that patch only affects CLFS, I trust you). The question is whether we
> should have a similar mechanism for LFS (possiblity to build chapter 5
> with makeflags only while building chapter 6 with makeflags and
> optimization, which is not possible presently AFAICT).
> Another related and more general question is whether "make install"
> shouldn't always be run with -j1.
> Since the bottleneck is mainly I/O during installation, I would expect
> that the performance would not be significantly degraded. OTH, in some
> cases, packages which build OK with make -jN do not always install (see
> It would be easy to change that in command generation.
> What do the others think ?
My builds are generally, but not always, for testing before updating the
book. In that case, I always want -j1 for timing. I never change
optimization because I don't think the changes are discernible without
As long as these are the defaults, I have no objection to making the
More information about the alfs-discuss