This is the mail archive of the 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

Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 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.

I've noticed that people who've only ever worked with GCC don't
think anything is wrong, they just assume that's how fast
compilers are.  People who come to GCC from CodeWarrior climb
the walls in frustration, because they don't see why their
2-minute compiles now have to take an hour.


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