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) writes:

| > I don't think we're doing users any favor by adopting an arrogant view,
| > saying that we should buy the last fastest computers just to be able to
| > use GCC in a decent maner.
| Well of course you have a different criterion for "decent manner". The
| first version of GNAT was developed on a 25MHz 486 note book with a
| miserably slow disk, and a bootstrap tool several hours. I found 
| it perfectly decent (incidentally the claim that GCC over the years
| has taken about a constant amount of time to bootstrap seems quite
| absurd to me, I see a rapid and continued decrease, today that bootstrap
| that took several hours now takes less than ten minutes).

The actual case that is worrying me is the C++ front-end, and the
claim you're trying to denying above just happens to meet my personal
everyday life experience (I even totally gave up trying to bootstrap the
compiler on SPARCs at my disposal here).  
Whether your Ada front-end got faster overthe year doesn't imply that
g++ also did.  Actually the C++ front-end got slower.  That is a fact;
and people keep making report about that.  You can't declare they're
dreaming just because your Ada front-end got faster.

-- Gaby

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