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: law at redhat dot com
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:29:16 -0600
- Subject: Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1051729729.15231.712.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo
writes:
>On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 14:28, Phil Edwards wrote:
>> Somewhat re-ording your suggestions.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:30:22PM -0700, Matt Austern wrote:
>> > 1. Compile an unchanging piece of source code.
>>
>> Anything in particular? I don't much care what, but its build time
>> multiplied by 5 needs to not be hellishly long. (The machine is used for
>> other things; and of course is can't be doing any of those other things
>> while these tests are running.)
>>
>I collected a bunch of .i files from the C front end and use that as my
>unchanging code base. It shouldn't take long to compile this 2-3 times
>to get a good average.
FWIW, now that we have C++ working with tree-ssa we should probably
add the .ii files from libstdc++ to at least start looking at how
our changes are affecting C++ compile time.
jeff