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).

I don't know about over the past 10 years, but I do know that in March
of last year, bootstrap took about 100 minutes on a fast x86 machine,
and today on the same fast x86 machine it takes about 165 minutes,
which is about the same speed that hardware improved over that time.

You can get exact numbers out of the regression tester's logfile at
<>; it shows
start and finish times.  The earlier numbers are on a different
machine, but since the start of the x86 native results it's been the
same hardware.

- Geoffrey Keating <> <>

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