This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 take 2

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>,GCC Developer Mailinglist <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 14:00:03 +0200
Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2
References: <20020519010638.CD605F28D4@nile.gnat.com> <1021809362.4808.1.camel@sonja.de.interearth.com>

> Am Son, 2002-05-19 um 03.06 schrieb Robert Dewar:
> 
> > I don't think timing the spec builds is that useful except for gcc, and that
> > information is more usefully obtained by measuring the time for a bootstrap
> > which is a figure that is itself useful. I am going to see if we can extract
> > useful information automatically from the ACT nightly builds.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure that measuring the time to build a changing
> codebase is all that useful. Having a codebase that is fixed seems
> more useful to me .

I believe both is usefull.  SPEC build time should give us imager of the raw
compilation speed on C,C++ and fortran, while bootstrap should point out if we
add something particulary expensive for example into libstdc++ headers,
thats why I asked for both graphs.  Hope Andreas's scripts will post the results
soon so we will see how much noisy the lines are.

Honza
>  
> -- 
> Servus,
>        Daniel

References:
- Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: gcc compile-time performance take 2
  - From: Daniel Egger

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