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] |
On 11/13/13 11:55, Eric Botcazou wrote:
They were consistent across the 10 runs with a spread of just 20 seconds out of over an hour.Across 10 runs we came in right at 70 minutes with the usual ~20 second variance. So it's slightly slower than the default languages right now. That doesn't help the cycle time for developers which was the major point for me.Your results still look a little strange to me...
The machine is an older quad core, so if you're building one something with more cores and Ada + its runtime parallelizes better than java + its runtime, then you'd probably see materially different results.
You're probably right. Which means we're not going to see any improvement in build/test cycle times. Sigh.IMO we need a non-call-exception language in the default mix, whatever it is.
jeff
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |