Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2 compilation speed?

[Lars Segerlund <lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se>]

 I have a small idea, once upon a time people were using kilo lines per 
second as a measurement of compiler speed, and on a 68030 you could hit 
well above 10klps optimized code.

 Perhaps we could report this metric ? I know it has a lot of 
fallancies when it compares to comparing different sources, however it's 
a metric which is easy to interpret for a specific program ( being 
compiled ), and a high relevance for the end user.

 Also it would point out relative slowdowns if used on a gcc+libs build 
and then one could target problem areas to increase build speed in two 
way's, one inprove handling of that code, two rewrite to circumvent.

 Any thought's ?

 / Lars.

Biagio Lucini wrote:
> Could you give me an example of a fast compiler? My only term of
> comparison is the Intel one, and with it it takes ages to compile the most
> trivial program.
>
> Biagio
>
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Lars Segerlund wrote:
>
>
> >  I like gcc, however I think this pinpoints the problem of using it for
> > real software developement, it's painfully slow and getting slower all
> > the time. When I get some time I will also look if I can give some help
> > in making it faster, however this is a problem since people are starting
> > to abandon gcc, ( for everything exept trivial stuff ).
> >
> >  Gcc would need a 50 % speedup in this case to be deemed usefull, and I
> > believe a speedup of 100%-200% would be necessary in order to put it on
> > par with most other compilers.
> >
> >  I just want to point out this in retrospect of the previous discussion
> > about compilation speed as a real issue, not to restart the debate.
> >
> >  / Lars Segerlund.