This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestions for improving gcc 3.2 compilation speed?
Lars Segerlund wrote:
Russell Shaw wrote:
Anna Fowles-Winkler 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.
I haven't been on this list long enough to see all the speed discussions,
but have these tests been done after excluding makefile and build-script
processes? Has HDD accesses been measured?
With my 500MHz P-III, i see many compile stages lasting for 10s or more
when compiling a kernel or another gcc from source. I can't believe there's
that many cpu cycles used in purely compiling. I'd thought the actual
compilation time would be more like < %10 of the total time.
Borland C++ Builder speeds the compilation by caching pre-compiled headers.