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: "Gerald Pfeifer" <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,"Neil Booth" <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Subject: Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size
- From: "Bobby McNulty" <bmj2001 at bellsouth dot net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:28:09 -0500
- Cc: "Marc Espie" <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0107092307150.99459-100000@deneb.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Pfeifer" <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
To: "Neil Booth" <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>
Cc: "Marc Espie" <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Neil Booth wrote:
> >> Indeed, GCC 3.0 takes an order of magnitude longer to compile my
sources,
> > That's not fair - it's not compiling the same sources if you're
> > talking about C++ with the standard library, which I presume you are.
>
> Well, yes. As I wrote "Plus, a lot of that slowdown probably is due to
> libstdc++-v3 and its much more standards compliant implementation of
> iterators etc."
>
> But, frankly, as I user I'm mainly seeing the following: It's exactly
> the same source that compiles without warning under both compilers, and
> one compiler takes significantly more time and more memory to generate a
> binary that is both larger and slower.
>
> Gerald
> --
> Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
>
I noticed in Linux Mandrake 8.0, with GCC 3.0.1 prerelease, the C++ took
about a minute to compile a simple "Hello, World" program, but GCC took less
than a second. BTW I did not recompile GLIBC or the Kernel.
Now, I'm back with Windows 98 and Cygwin. I was just reading the list when I
found the slowdown messages.
Perhaps the size does play a lot with it.
Bobby McNulty
Computer Enthusiest.