This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: davem at redhat dot com, dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: ak at suse dot de, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dhazeghi at pacbell dot net,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk, shebs at apple dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance
> 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 :-).
Well I find the notion of a bootstrap taking days to be weird. I do a
complete three cycle bootstrap of GNAT in about ten minutes on my notebook
which is a slow machine (compared to say a $900 desktop). It is true that
compared to fast compilers (e.g. Realia COBOL compiles at something like
a million lines a minute on a fast PC), GCC is slow, but on today's fast
machines it seems adequately fast to me.