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?
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>,Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>, s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, matt at 3am-software dot com, cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:03:42 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <200504272055.j3RKtJfL013789@earth.phy.uc.edu> <1114694844.2729.240.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <17008.59023.361787.925505@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <jebr7z80nt.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <200504281609.j3SG9ZD27524@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20050428164727.GB30649@synopsys.com> <200504281654.j3SGs0D27158@makai.watson.ibm.com> <oracncw0a1.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:57:10PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the
> effort. 2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully
> significantly more efficient on hosts where the use of shell functions
> optimized for properties of the build machine and/or the host
> machine can bring us such improvement.
> Thoughts?
Richard Henderson showed that the libjava build spends 2/3 of its time
in libtool, and that his hand-hacked (but not portable) modification to
invoke the appropriate binutils commands directly gave a huge speedup.
To me, 300% overhead means major breakage, so we need a better libtool.
However, this better libtool might not yet exist.