This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
> It's also interesting to note how the compiler tree keeps taking
> longer to compile.
Interesting isn't my word of choice. The key point here though is that this is
to be expected, especially as new front-ends and features are added. What is
not as expected is a constant increase in compile-time on the same code.
> I can't imagine recent gcc's compiling in under a minute on that kind
> of hardware.
Gracious no! My results so far (same 733MHZ i686-pc-linux-gnu, using gcc
184.108.40.206 as the bootstrap compiler)
just make with C language enabled:
gcc 220.127.116.11 0m37.650s
gcc 2.8.1 0m45.840s
gcc 2.90.29 1m27.310s
gcc 2.91.66 1m39.370s
gcc 2.95.3 1m56.250s
gcc 3.0.4 3m43.970s
gcc 3.1 4m5.530s
this isn't half bad. But look at make with all languages enabled (not really
an apples to apples comparison, but that's what a user would see):
make with all default languages enabled:
gcc 18.104.22.168 0m54.380s (c,c++,objc)
gcc 2.8.1 1m5.980s (c,c++,objc)
gcc 2.90.29 2m44.120s (c,c++,objc,f77)
gcc 2.91.66 2m54.430s (c,c++,obc,f77)
gcc 2.95.3 4m30.960s (c,c++,objc,f77,libstdc++,java,chill)
gcc 3.0.4 20m32.940s (c,c++,objc,f77,libstdc++,java,fixinc)
gcc 3.1 34m35.440s (c,c++,objc,f77,libstdc++,java,fixinc)
One other note: if I disable java (which is a bit more difficult than it needs
to be, why not a --disable flag?), I get:
gcc 3.1 11m46.390s (c,c++,objc,f77,libstdc++,fixinc)
Food for thought I guess...
> However, I do feel that generated code quality is an order of
> magnitude more important than the time required to produce it, which
> is in turn an order of magnitude more important than the time it takes
> to build the compiler itself.
Agreed. However, my point is that in my experience, gcc tends to generate good
quality code, it is primarily the time taken to generate that code that can
become a problem. I certainly understand the need and interest in adding new
optimizers (and quite appreciate it) but I think when one builds something at
-O2, one expects that only both safe and obvious optimizations are applied.
Thus I think significant increases in compile-time at -O2 are an issue (if
I'm making a false assumption about -O2, please correct me). We do have -O3
too after all ;-)
P.S. On a side note, how do I disable running fixincludes entirely? I don't
object to running them, but they just add another variable to collecting
build statistics, and my process is unscientific enough as it is.