Re: benefits of using of ccache?

["J. Gardner Biggs" <gardnerbiggs houston rr com>]

On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:18 +0200, Stef van der Made wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> While building the full suite of Garnome I see the cache grow until it 
> reaches about 1.1GB after several updates. I think that 1 GB is enough 
> when you build without using too much of boostrap and bindings.  It does 
> speed up the build quite conciderably on my box :-)

Stef:

What did you do in setting up ccache, and/or changes to gar.conf.mk to
get it to work for you?

Did changing the install prefix negate any benefits of using ccache for
me?  I am just perplexed why I didn't see any benefits.

Thanks.

> Cheers,
> 
> Stef
> 
> Paul Drain wrote:
> 
> >>To see if ccache would speed up things, I changed the install prefix and
> >>fired up /desktop make paranoid-install.  It is now been crunching away
> >>for 4 hours now with an eye-balled finishing time of 6 hrs.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The *first* time you compile something with ccache, there is no visible
> >effect -- preprocessed objects can be compiled quicker (the first copy
> >in the cache gets used for all subsequent builds), but everything else
> >works like a normal compile.
> >
> >The next time, (or if you run 'make clean; make install' in an
> >individual directory) is *much* faster - depending on disc speed and the
> >amount of caching space you request.
> >
> >The reason I recommend bumping the cache space up, is that ccache will
> >flush the cache of expired objects when there is less than 10% (I think)
> >room remaining -- and when you're building Mozilla, it evicts objects
> >quite frequently.
> >
> >Of course, you can check all this information out by running 'ccache -s'
> >from the prompt :)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >  
> >
> 
-- 
J. Gardner Biggs <gardnerbiggs houston rr com>