This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,"Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 13:18:51 -0400
- Subject: Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)
I also agree we should make compilation time a major goal for 3.4.
One implication: if this is a major goal, then it's too important to
be left just to the people who care about compilation time. One thing
we've observed at Apple, and I hope people on this list have noticed
it too, is that performance just leaks away if you're not looking at
it. Everybody should be thinking about the performance implications
of their changes, and everyone should be measuring. Finally,
everybody should be concerned about small regressions, not just large
ones. A 2% performance regression may not seem like much, but if you
check in a change that causes a 2% regression then you've just put a
new work item on someone else's queue: find another change to get back
that lost time. It doesn't take very many small regressions to make
up a noticeable degradation.
While we already have people doing nightly testing of performance of
generated code, maybe we need some nightly testing of compilation speed
on some representative set of code.
A weekly nag report that tells us how much performance has
improved/degraded on the various tests that week/month/since last
release would be nice, too.
--Matt