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] |
Wit Jakuczun wrote:
I have few comments and questions on quality of code generated by g++ from GCC 3.1.There has been some earlier email pointing out that the compile-times have increased. However, this was in reference to C code and bootstrapping the compiler rather than C++ code.
1) Compiler seems to be much slower than GCC 2.95.2 (3 times on average).
The code heavily uses STL and exceptions.
Do you have some concise examples that demonstrate this problem? It is hard to fix the problem without test cases. Having a test case that allows other people to replicate the problem helps immensely.2) Code generated is much slower (3 times on average) especially if streams are used
Did you "make bootstrap"? If you are just using the GCC 3.1 executable generated by GCC 2.95.2(?), that may be part of the problem. If you do not bootstrap the compiler, you are measuring the performance and efficiency of the code generated by gcc 2.95.2 when you measure compile-time.Questions: a) What is the reason of such big decrease in performance especially if exceptions and/or streams are used? b) Is it a problem of setting correct options for GCC 3.1? c) Where can I find a good comparison of C++ compilers? Options I used to make GCC3.1 (using GCC 2.92.2): --enable-threads --enable-nls --enable-cstdio=stdio
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |