This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc compile-time performance
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: gdr at codesourcery dot com, drow at mvista dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, scott at coyotegulch dot com
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 04:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: gcc compile-time performance
- References: <20020519111448.1FF7AF28CC@nile.gnat.com>
From: email@example.com (Robert Dewar)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 07:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
| Running Solaris, the same bootstrap (and it is an equivalently
| targetted bootstrap doing the same amount of multilibbing) takes more
| than a day on a 32 processor Solaris machine with several gigabytes of
But this went on to say that building Java was the time consuming step.
Of course we don't do that build (were you using doing that build in your
Actually, make check takes most of the time but building the java
libraries is by far the longest part of the bootstrap (something like
a few hours). The fact that you aren't enabling all the languages
is probably why you don't think the bootstrap and testing takes very
I enable all languages possible, and run every testsuite, for a given
target. I do this because that is the most fundamental part of
regression testing a change to the compiler. I do this for every
change I make to GCC.
If I were to do otherwise, at least I personally would feel that I
am doing all of my fellow GCC developers a disservice and frankly
wasting their time.
If the change I make is not target specific, I am sure to do the whole
build+regression run on at least 2 platforms.
If the change is really delicate, I will build a set of applications
(usually the Linux kernel if applicable, Mozilla, and emacs for
starters) as well.
If I were to try and do my primary development of GCC using Solaris
I wouldn't accomplish very much given a day long round trip to see
just the GCC regression test results.