[distcc] Using cc1/cc1plus directly from distccd?
Martin Pool
mbp at samba.org
Wed Feb 26 02:40:18 GMT 2003
Hi, Sorry for not replying before.
On 18 Feb 2003, "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at bmsi.com> wrote:
> Hello, I am new to distcc. I have been using my own version of distributed
> gcc for 15 years. It works by replacing cc1 and cc1plus with a stub that
> runs those programs on a remote system. The remote system is typically
> running a cross compiler. This allowed me to port GCC to SysV88 despite
> the fact that the included GreenHills compiler was too buggy to compile
> GCC. It allowed me to port GCC to AIX without buying IBM's very good but
> very expensive compiler. It now allows me to compile much faster on our
> old slow (100Mhz PPC604) AIX system than with the local compiler.
Very cool :-)
> Lo and behold, I found distcc which already does everything I want -
> almost. The problem is that I compile only the cc1 and cc1plus cross
> compiler programs. It is way too much trouble to get includes, libraries,
> etc installed in an alien system for a complete cross compiler.
Yes, I agree. It would be nice to document how to install only the
parts of the toolchain that distcc needs (cc1, cc1plus, and gas.)
> These are in fact, the only programs needed for distcc (and my own
> stub). However, distccd seems to call the gcc front end rather than
> cc1 or cc1plus.
In gcc, if I understand correctly, the 'cc' front end is pretty thin,
but it does more than just directly call cpp or cc1. I think it adds
some parameters based on the spec files.
For simplicity, rather than reproducing this functionality, I thought
I would just call gcc remotely. I suppose it might be slightly
faster not to call cc.
> Is there any way to avoid calling the front end on the volunteer
> system, and run only the compiler proper with distcc?
There is not at the moment. I suppose distcc could be changed to do
it, but why?
--
Martin
More information about the distcc
mailing list