This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
gcc compile-time performance take 2
- From: Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at pacbell dot net>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:54:45 -0700
- Subject: gcc compile-time performance take 2
well I had no idea the thread would spark a firestorm of debate (is flamewar
the correct term?). In any case there are a number of opinions about the
matter. My point (although it seems to now be submerged in a discussion of
what is acceptable development hardware) is that things have gotten slower. I
am not particularly optimistic that gcc 3.2 is going to be faster or equal in
this respect to gcc 2.95, and I think it is rather unrealistic to think so.
What I would like to see though, is some method of ensuring that gcc 3.2 is
not particularly slower, given the same optimizations, than gcc 3.1. To this
end, I think Andi Kleen's comments are right on the mark.
So my suggestion (again, as a non-developer, though a frequent user) would be
to time the SPEC builds. Considering that Andreas Jaeger and Diego Novillo
are already building and running the benchmarks, it seems that a few tweaks
to the scripts in question would easily allow one to follow compile-time
performance on top of run-time performance.
Comments, ideas or nasty remarks? Also, where might I find the scripts in
question (doesn't seem to be in the standard gcc checkout, or the release