This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)

To: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
From: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:56:13 -0400
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0107190925220.7949-100000@taygeta.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><200107202341.f6KNfkC62782@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>

Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:

> 
> Next, we would study the code generation processing at various
> optimization levels.  Gerald's data displays the issue of code
> generation speed for real application code, and I have no better
> example to post off-hand.  I am the only one that finds it odd that
> -O0 takes longer to compile than -O1, -O2 and -O3 under 2.95.3?

It shouldn't take longer to compile at -O1,-O2,-O3 than -O0, because
the slow parts of the compiler don't have as much code to wade
through.

> 
> Regards,
> Loren

-- 
"I wrote a few children's books...  Not on purpose.
"-Steven Wright

References:
- C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer
- Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
  - From: Loren James Rittle

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]