This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
- From: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:57:40 -0400
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0107190925220.7949-100000@taygeta.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> I know we have already made some pretty significant bug-fixes, so I'm
>> confident that the 3.0.1 release will be useful to current 3.0 users.
>> It would be nice to address some of the lingering issues relative to
>> GCC 2.95 that are preventing people from upgrading.
>
> Well, here I have to step up again, I'm afraid. If you look at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-07/msg01376.html
> you'll see that C++ projects heavily relying on STL apparently
> simply cannot use GCC 3.0.
>
> GCC 2.95 GCC 3.0
> Compile time Binary size Compile time Binary Size
> -O0 6:19 3915128 8:20 4159780
> -O1 4:20 4203480 11:40 4829732
> -O2 5:56 4209368 14:09 4862532
> -O3 5:47 4221464 32:04 6166052
>
> This is not (only) an inlining problem it seems?
We *still* haven't changed the inlining default.
>
> And, as shown by the table in my original message, the generated code
> is also significantly slower, probably because of the ADDRESSOF issue
> which still has not been resolved yet, AFAIK?
>
> Gerald
> --
> Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
"I bought one of those little glass ball things with the snow in
it. You know, you turn it upside down then you turn it back and
it starts to snow. I bought one, except this has a snow plow
that does it in rows.
"-Steven Wright