This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
To: Dan Nicolaescu <dann at ics dot uci dot edu>
Cc: "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:37:55 +0000
Subject: Re: compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)
References: <F65E3CFB-07D4-11D7-A567-00039390D9E0@apple.com> <Pine.BSF.4.50.0212052132140.63645-100000@naos.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <200212100246.gBA2kujF029585@gremlin.ics.uci.edu>

Dan Nicolaescu wrote:-

> It looks like there was a significant increase in the garbage
> collection time. It's strange that GC is so expensive for C++
> compilation. 

I think GC is turning out to be a mistake, even though it saves
us from nasty memory issues.  It means we have no idea what code
is gradually getting worse; it just shows up as "GC".  And it
gives poor locality.

Neil.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)
  - From: Daniel Berlin

References:
- Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
  - From: Matt Austern
- compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]