This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: mainline slowdown


On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays
> > checkout (way longer than expected).  A quick investigation shows C++
> > compilation timed are through the roof.
>
> 10 hours?

read carefully. "bootstrap/make check"

>
> >
> > Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get:
> >
> > tree PTA              :1135.48 (88%) usr   5.47 (55%) sys1168.23 (85%) wall    4045 kB ( 1%) ggc
> > TOTAL                 :1283.62             9.97          1381.98             451745 kB
>
> This is uh, like 20 minutes wall time.
> So where is 10 hours coming from?

this says cpgram.ii, not bootstrap/make check cycle. Big difference.

BTW, what do you think these have to do with each other?


One is a pathological testcase with about 10000-50000  initializers,
the other is a whole bunch of relatively normal code.
So why would you attempt to draw conclusions about bootstrap/regtest
from cpgram.ii?

*particularly* when the other issue you keep harping on has in fact,
been shown *not* to increase GCC compile time by the regression
testers.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]