From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_NONE,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from phenix.rezal-mdm.com (AMontsouris-108-2-4-51.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.252.199.51]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E95AC455 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 13:08:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from yggdrasil.heaven (defresne.rezal-mdm.com [10.2.130.6]) by phenix.rezal-mdm.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g4OI7uw10213 for ; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:07:57 +0200 Received: from keiichi by yggdrasil.heaven with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17BJT3-0002Tn-00 for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 24 May 2002 20:07:09 +0200 Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:07:08 +0200 To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ccache and sandbox Message-ID: <20020524180708.GA3503@yggdrasil.heaven> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20020524171216.GJ15539@triceratops.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SUOF0GtieIMvvwua" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020524171216.GJ15539@triceratops.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Editor: vim (http://www.vim.org/) X-Operating-System: Gentoo GNU/Linux (http://www.gentoo.org/) From: Defresne Sylvain Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: f5fc0491-42eb-404f-b963-70caff5b74db X-Archives-Hash: 285b97d3eca9812406e38fd86b697173 --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ! * John White (johnjohn@triceratops.com) wrote: > I heard an interesting question on irc just now. Does anyone have > ccache on a system actually working to accellerate repeat compiles? > > For a ccache overview: http://ccache.samba.org/ >=20 > Short version, ccache speeds up repeat compiles by caching compiler > i/o. >=20 > However, because of the sandbox, ccache info results in a sandbox > violation. The user patched sandbox to allow writes to /var/cache/ccache > but I'm wondering if there is supposed to be a better way. I've got another solution. In fact, the standard sanbox allows full read / write acces in /tmp directory. So, I just set CCACHE_DIR to '/tmp/root/ccache' and CC to 'ccache gcc' before calling emerge. It works well this way and it doesn't need to modify the sandbox ! Bye --=20 Keiichi --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjzugUwACgkQx/t7fS2BSuyfCQCglJfox0rY83tb/R2B9P7c2+Fa N88An09z8a9dmlvbealZbqj3zOOfREEQ =tX0y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--