[distcc] What is the best way to separate compiler and assembler
phases?
Martin Pool
mbp at samba.org
Wed Feb 26 02:54:43 GMT 2003
On 25 Feb 2003, "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at bmsi.com> wrote:
> Having lurked for a while, I realize that not all compilers produce
> assembler code as an intermediate step. Some directly produce an object
> file. But for those that produce assembler as an intermediate, what is the
> best way to run the compiler and assembler on different machines - while
> keeping the overall distcc architecture?
(Answered in the other message.)
I think what you're saying is that on your volunteer machine, you have
the right cc1, but not the corresponding as. Isn't gas produced as
part of the GNU toolchain installation?
> Also, the GNU compiler supports piping preprocessed source into the
> compiler via stdin - avoiding having to produce an entire temp file before
> beginning the compile. Similarly, the compiler output goes to stdout, and
> can be piped directly to the assembler. How should this be supported in
> distcc?
distcc used to support something like this but it was disabled because
of bugs. In fact, it fed the compiler from a fifo rather than stdin.
(See the NEWS file.) I'll look at adding it back in now that there is
a benchmark suite that can show whether it's faster or not.
It does allow for more overlapped processing but I'm not sure if it's
significant.
> Perhaps distcc could recognize the -pipe option to enable these
> features.
You can use -pipe now, which will make the (possibly remote) cc1 feed
as through a pipe.
--
Martin
More information about the distcc
mailing list