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: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal


On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 10:49:30PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:

> 	Did you build head configured with --disable-checking?

Rebuilt with --disable-checking, and double-checked the options. There
was a bug that meant I was not -O2 in both cases.

Now, the actual options are 
-Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wno-uninitialized -Wno-format -Wno-main  -fno-builtin-printf
-fno-builtin-log -fno-builtin-malloc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
in both cases.

And it's still a bit slower:

gcc 3.3.2:
  527.98s real   421.02s user    30.36s system

gcc -head  with --disable-checking:
  544.91s real   439.52s user    30.27s system


Okay, the slow-down is not as marked as with --enable-checking, but it
still does exist: 4% is something.

Basically, the code there is just an OpenBSD kernel. It won't fly as a
testcase unless you have an OpenBSD system available.

It's just plain old C.  Nothing really fancy about it.

So, the compiler is not getting faster.

To give you some scope, again. A similar bulk of code used to compile in
3 hours on a 68040.  This 4% translates to an extra 7 minutes.

A make build on such a machine takes about two days. This 4% translates to
2 hours more.

I'll try doing some profiling in the near future...


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