This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote:
> If we do a reasonable comparison of compile times against the intel compiler or
> the portland group or something similar we consistenly find that gcc is slower
> by a couple of times 1x - 3x, ( this is only my impression, not backed up by
> hard data but should be in the ballpark ).
Please don't add additional speculation to this already messy subject.
Feel free to come back with data.
> The real killer seems to be large memory usage, and I have a hard time believing that
> if you compile fx. 1 meg of source the compiler 'have' to use some 800 megs or
> something as working memory. ( When speaking of the real killer here I mean for
> old systems ). With all the discussions on cache hit rate and similar criterions
> lately we can't forget that less data higher means hit rate.
Same here. You've shown pretty clearly that you haven't looked at what
GCC does with its memory usage. Yes, a lot of it is wasted, but a lot
of that is constant factors (e.g. structures that are wastefully
large), not things which would affect a non-linear blowup. Do you
think it adds any value to GCC development to shout "please think about
this problem" without any concrete suggestions?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC