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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: gcc compile-time performance


   From: dewar@gnat.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
population.

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.


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