This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: dberlin at dberlin dot org, shebs at apple dot com, ak at suse dot de, dhazeghi at pacbell dot net, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance
- References: <20020518001420.36B7DF28C4@nile.gnat.com>
From: email@example.com (Robert Dewar)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:14:20 -0400 (EDT)
My own feeling here is that compile time performance is less important
than run time performance. We have never seen a customer pushed in the
direction of a proprietary compiler by compile time performance, but we
have seen many concerns about runtime performance being slower.
I've seen quite the opposite, where compile time performance would
have made or broken someone's product ever shipping because bootstraps
took on the order of days. Programmers don't get paid to fart in
their chairs waiting for builds to finish so then can begin running
regression tests (well, actually, let's be honest, some do :-).
Why do you think people compiling under Windows using Microsoft's
header files are so interested in precompiled header support? So at
the very least, compilation speed is important to some significant
I'd like to particularly point out the BSD folks, I totally agree with
their arguments. When you have to bootstrap entire systems on old
hardware, using gcc-3.1 is a complete and utter joke. That is not
funny and I vow to work on fixing this. People like Mark are fixing
stupid things the java compiler does during a bootstrap.