This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: davem at redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, scott at coyotegulch dot com
- Date: 19 May 2002 13:27:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <20020519111448.1FF7AF28CC@nile.gnat.com>
email@example.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
| > I can second this. That is one of the reasons (another was frequent
| > bootstrap failure) I totally gave up using the idle SPARC cycles here
| > building the compiler.
| Odd, we have found SPARC/Solaris to be our most reliable build platform
| (for example it is by far the closest to passing our regression tests
| for Ada with GCC 3), and the time to build is commensurate with the
| raw speed of the processor.
| | Running Solaris, the same bootstrap (and it is an equivalently
| | targetted bootstrap doing the same amount of multilibbing) takes more
| | than a day on a 32 processor Solaris machine with several gigabytes of
| | ram.
| But this went on to say that building Java was the time consuming step.
| Of course we don't do that build (were you using doing that build in your
| seconding here)
Due to the way your mailer manages to break down the threading and
the way you quote with no attribution, it is really really difficult
to follow you. Are you questioning me or David M.?
Yes, when I make changes that are likely to affect the whole
compiler I have to do a full bootstrap. Before I start a change I make
a full bootstrap to get some sense of what is already there. A full
bootstrap (including libjava) takes more than a day.
What I'm reporting may look odd to you, but that is a fact.