Sorry Matthew, forgot to reply to this one. On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:01:35PM +0200, Matthew Rezny wrote: > On Wednesday 05 April 2017 16:15:41 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > ... > > Hmm, I don't quite get it: shouldn't static linking actually increase > > the binaries (and thus the package) size? > > I might have reversed static and shared somewhere in the linking > explanation, or not properly described the situation. [...] Understood, makes sense now. > There was a brief period in which llvm39 was fully switched to dynamic > linking, which made it considerably smaller but caused runtime problems > (and was also likely to be slower). That still sounds like the most sane way to go; provided those problems are/would be fixed, I hope for that switch to happen again one day. (I somewhat doubt that "slower" was noticeable enough to worry about.) > The best solution to cut rebuild time for LLVM is ccache. Indeed, ccache helps greatly. Now that I've managed to cut down package times as well, situation with LLVM ports no longer looks as bad as I originally saw it; thank you. ./danfeReceived on Sat Apr 15 2017 - 12:54:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:11 UTC