This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- Cc: "scott at coyotegulch dot com" <scott at coyotegulch dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:07:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
--On Saturday, May 18, 2002 05:38:11 PM +0200 Gabriel Dos Reis
> email@example.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
>| > I don't think we're doing users any favor by adopting an arrogant view,
>| > saying that we should buy the last fastest computers just to be able to
>| > use GCC in a decent maner.
>| Well of course you have a different criterion for "decent manner". The
>| first version of GNAT was developed on a 25MHz 486 note book with a
>| miserably slow disk, and a bootstrap tool several hours. I found
>| it perfectly decent (incidentally the claim that GCC over the years
>| has taken about a constant amount of time to bootstrap seems quite
>| absurd to me, I see a rapid and continued decrease, today that bootstrap
>| that took several hours now takes less than ten minutes).
> The actual case that is worrying me is the C++ front-end,
This is a key point.
Robert, some of the ways that people are using C++ is putting an
incredible strain on compilers -- not just GCC -- and *is* making it
difficult for people to work effectively.
In order to support those uses, and to be competitive with other
compilers, we do need to improve the speed of the compiler. I've heard
this from too many real world customers with spending authority to
believe any different.
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com