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 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
Cc: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 15:17:15 -0500
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
Organization: Red Hat Canada
References: <0045B60F-3ADE-11D7-9ED6-000393673036@apple.com> <20030209192459.GB11679@earth.cs.mu.oz.au>

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Fergus Henderson wrote:

> compiler	version		options		compilation time
> --------	-------		-------		----------------
> gcc 		2.95.4		-c -O2 ...      5.53
> gcc		2.95.4		-c -O1 ...      3.19
> gcc		2.95.4		-c -O0 ...      2.65
> lcc             4.1             -c      	1.04
> tcc             1.9.16          -c      	0.34
> 
What optimizations were used by 'lcc' and 'tcc'?  i.e., is GCC 7
times or 16 times slower than 'tcc'?  What about the generated
code?  I want to make sure that we are comparing apples to
apples.


Diego.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
  - From: Aaron Lehmann
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
  - From: Fergus Henderson

References:
- GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
  - From: Ziemowit Laski
- Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - THE GRAPH
  - From: Fergus Henderson

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