This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 01:15:15 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <JCEPIPKHCJGDMPOHDOIGIECJCOAA.gary@intrepid.com> <20050427152844.GA86951@compsoc.man.ac.uk> <426FB37D.3060507@3am-software.com> <200504272157.21513.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <42700E81.60105@apple.com> <1114642999.18731.4.camel@linux.site> <8764y7n5zm.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20050429124937.333edbe7@zeta.comsys.se> <20050429144153.GA24955@nevyn.them.org>
On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote:
If we do a reasonable comparison of compile times against the
intel compiler or
the portland group or something similar we consistenly find that
gcc is slower
by a couple of times 1x - 3x, ( this is only my impression, not
backed up by
hard data but should be in the ballpark ).
Please don't add additional speculation to this already messy subject.
Feel free to come back with data.
Finder_FE_v3 on 1GHz G4 PowerBook, 512MB RAM:
10.4 Tiger 8A428 using gcc4.0 (build results window closed), PCH,
native target, debug on, no optimization, indexing off.
full build: 574 seconds = 2.25 WarMarks
10.3.4 with Metroworks Code Warrior 9.0 with debug on, no optimization
full build: 255 seconds
but please, don't let our data get in the way... mind you, this is
better than 36x slower, which is where it used to be, but, still
horrible. To get a feel for it, drive 30 on the freeway in the fast
lane. :-)
For source, try QT, we believe it is representative.