This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size
- To: Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
- Subject: Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:12:39 +0200 (CEST)
- cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Marc Espie wrote:
> <devil's advocate>
> Err... New compilers are supposed to be BETTER than old ones. Ideally, there
> should be no regression at all ! What's the damn point of -Os if successive
> releases of the compiler keep getting out larger and larger code ?
Indeed, GCC 3.0 takes an order of magnitude longer to compile my sources,
about three times as much of memory, and the generated code runs slower
(on ia32, one of the platforms most improved for GCC 3.0).
> In fact, what's the point of adding and adding more optimizing passes to
> the compiler if all it does is keep the code size mostly identical, keep
> the running time mostly identical, and slow the compiler down even more ?
That's a question I've asked myself as well, yes. :-(
On point, and a crucial so, is infrastructure. The new C++ inliner got us
rid of a lot of bugs and will allow for significant improvements in the
near future. Plus, a lot of that slowdown probably is due to libstdc++-v3
and its much more standards compliant implementation of iterators etc.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/