This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: gcc compile-time performance
- From: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
- To: Scott Robert Ladd <scott at coyotegulch dot com>
- Cc: GCC Developer Mailinglist <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 18 May 2002 20:02:02 +0200
- Subject: RE: gcc compile-time performance
- References: <FKEAJLBKJCGBDJJIPJLJIENICGAA.email@example.com>
Am Sam, 2002-05-18 um 16.47 schrieb Scott Robert Ladd:
> People in wealthier areas tend to ignore the realities of the rest of the
> world. So far as I know, gcc isn't just written for people in the U.S. and
> Western Europe; perhaps I was wrong. Even in the U.S., there exist
> significant segments of society that can not spend $500 on a new computer
> every year or so.
So what? We're basically talking about sacrifying compile time for run
time. If you don't need the new features of GCC 3.x or whatever then
don't use it and stick to older versions if compilation gets to slow on
old machines; you can still use a newer gcc for the final compilation if
you want maximum performance.
Actually one of the problems is that the work is shifted from the CPU to
the compiler by creating more complicated monster CPU's, be that
superscalar hyperpipelines VLIW cpus or something else. However if you
cannot afford such a beast you'll probably also not need the scheduling
and optimisation capabilites for such a beast. And better leave your
hands off "nifty" languages like Java or or C++, they are designed to
ease development by possibly hurting performance.