This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Anyone else sees a bootstrap failure (Linux-x86)?
Andrew Haley wrote:
> > "-pipe" is useful and eliminates a lot of temporary files creation,
> > somewhat speeding up the build.
>
> Not on any sane platform. Really, have you ever seen a significant
> speedup? Or is file creation so horribly slow on Windows that this is
> a real issue?
Ok, I did some measurements on Win2K and Solaris 8 with
a GCC 3.4 snapshot and 3.3.2 respectively.
On Windows 2000, I could not measure any difference
between "-pipe" and "normal" compilations (using the
'time' command as provided by MSYS's bash).
On Solaris 8, I did see an improvement with "-pipe",
but it was always a ~5% improvement. A representative
run would be:
-------------------------- 8< -----------------------
~/tmp > time gcc -pipe foo.c
real 0m0.550s
user 0m0.350s
sys 0m0.100s
~/tmp > time gcc foo.c
real 0m0.579s
user 0m0.380s
sys 0m0.050s
-------------------------- 8< -----------------------
"foo.c" is a generated file with 51 simple
functions - not terribly representative of "real" code,
I agree. The same file was used on both Win2K and Sol8.
I guess with more complicated code, more time
would be spent by GCC in optimisations rather than
I/O (and this trend is exacerbated in 3.4!) so
this represents hardly 5 minutes saved in a two
hour bootstrap. :-/
But I *still* maintain that GCC should not ICE
if I specify "-pipe" in bootstrap flags.
Ranjit.
--
Ranjit Mathew Email: rmathew AT hotmail DOT com
Bangalore, INDIA. Web: http://ranjitmathew.tripod.com/