This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Compile-Time Regressions
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:00:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: GCC Compile-Time Regressions
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Neil Booth wrote:
Ziemowit Laski wrote:-
Just for completeness, I thought I'd share my measurements for release
branches other than 3.3.x.
Currently, there is some controversy as to whether 3.4/TOT is actually
slower than 3.3. My measurements
consistently confirm this thesis, although some folks apparently found
the reverse to be true. A suggestion
has been made (on this list, I believe) that 3.4 may be slower on
small
files but faster on big ones. So,
is my test case considered small or large? The structparser.cpp file
itself is indeed very small, but it
pulls in a lot of Qt and STL gunk via #include and balloons up to 1
Mb,
which I would no longer consider
small. So, if someone (other than me) could do some systematic
3.3-vs-3.4 measurements and post the results
here, that would be great.
How come the .ii file is so different? /me guesses tabs have become
spaces.
The C++ library was completely rewritten between 2.95 and 3.x. The
3.x library has localization support, templatized streams, etc. No
surprise at all that a C++ .ii file is much larger in 3.x.
--Matt