This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
- From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
- To: Eric Christopher <echristo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, "pcarlini at unitus dot it" <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 14:08:47 -0800
- Subject: Re: merging for 3.4 (was Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() ...)
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 01:03 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 13:39, Neil Booth wrote:
Jan Hubicka wrote:-
Compiler is getting slower in each release but that is mostly
cumulative
result of adding new features current infrastructure can't accept
cheaply...
I hate this slowness. There's no reason IMO that GCC couldn't be 4
times faster than it is, without any PCH or anything. A lot of the
code we use is just awfully inefficient. And people are working on
more interesting things than fixing some of the real problems we have.
Some of the advantages to working on the tree-ssa bits is that they
will
(hopefully) enable us to do a better job of optimizing faster so that
the later rtl routines have less to work with and are faster as a
result.
Except that most of the compile time is taken up in the front end.
That's what we've found at Apple for the projects we care most
about, anyway.
Are there good test cases for the 3.1 -> 3.3 compile time
regressions? It would be interesting to study them and find out
just what has gotten slower. If the numbers people have been
tossing around are real, then these are very serious regressions
and we should consider slipping the schedule rather than
releasing a compiler with those sorts of performance problems.
--Matt