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


>If one should carry out the suggestion as fundamentalisticly as the quote
>above, then one should get down to a compile time of about no more than a
>few seconds; with anything more than that, it becomes annoying.

Indeed - its largely achieved by Microsoft C++
for the sort of systems I see (trading tools,
mainly).  Compiling on the UNIX boxes is deeply
unpleasant in comparison.

I have to disagree strongly with Mr Dewar's
prioritisation of runtime performance.

Many organisations develop and test using -g
and no optimisation, and then release what they've
tested, symbols and all.  And why not?  As soon
as you do database IO, most bets are off.
Most real business apps will use a database,
or communicate with something else, or otherwise
be bound in system calls (eg select).

Only a few bits of my applications really need
optimising at all, and Quantify tells me
which THEY are quite handily.

Speed of delivery is a big issue though, and
I can turn around funcional changes on the PC
much faster than on the UNIX boxes.

James



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