This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, bkoz at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 13:28:42 -0600
- Subject: Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1051729667.15551.5.camel@ghostwheel.sfbay.redhat.com>, Eric Christo
pher writes:
>
>> Five hours falls into the hellishly long category.
>>
>> But there may be hope: how much time does "no fancy things" shave from
>> that hour of build time? If building the non-fancy parts of Qt only takes
>> 10 minutes, then that's a very viable option.
>
>How about 20001226-1.c? It takes a while to build and while it's kinda
>dependent on a couple of passes in teh compiler, it can take a few mins
>to build.
Yea, but it's really stressing just a couple key codepaths. While it's
an interesting test, I don't necessarily think it's representative of
real code.
Qt, Mozilla, POOMA and the like would make much better tests -- even if
it's just some of their shared libraries if the entire packages themselves
are too large.
Jeff