This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: What makes a difference in the resulting compiler's speed when building gcc?
On 2016.10.27 at 18:08 +0100, Sven C. Dack wrote:
> On 27/10/16 17:30, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Sven C. Dack wrote:
> >
> > > I've been installing private copies of gcc for a while now, but only
> > > recently did I notice that my distro's gcc (Debian testing) is doing
> > > much better when comparing compile times than any of my copies. For
> > > instance does it take 230s for my copy to compile a linux kernel,
> > > but only 163s for my distro's gcc, which is almost a minute in
> > > difference for something that doesn't take more than 3-4 minutes to
> > > compile.
> > >
> > > What makes this noteworthy for me is that I've compiled my copy with
> > > profiledbootstrap and LTO enabled and also optimized it for my CPU,
> > > whereas the distro's compiler won't have been optimized quite that
> > > much, but yet is it so much faster in speed. I don't know how
> > > exactly my distro's gcc has been set up, because the Debian build
> > > rules are rather complex and include their own set of patches. So I
> > > thought I start with asking here first.
> > >
> > > What is that can make such a huge difference in compile speed for
> > > two copies of gcc, both version 6.2, using the same options, on the
> > > same source? Or are any of the configure options know to have a huge
> > > impact on the resulting compiler's speed?
> >
> > --enable-checking=release would be the first thing to check.
> >
> Thank you, will do.
>
> I can already say that I am using "yes", because I'm using the latest git
> versions and have always favoured a reasonable amount of checks. If this is
> already the cause for the difference then I might actually keep it this way.
Yes, this is the cause. You can use -fno-checking to switch some checks
off at compile time.
--
Markus