GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER

[Devang Patel]

>  I checked with some source , microsofts compiler, the intel compiler 
> and an old lattice compiler, gcc is somewhere around 4-6 times slower 
> than these compilers, now this was a really bad test from benchmarking 
> perspective, but still Tubo-C and Turbo-C++ did a lot of lines/sek.
>

And we do not want to forget other alternative, Mac OS X developers 
have -- CW.
Possibly it is fastest of all. We have received complained about GCC 
compiler time
speed in terms of couple of hours vs less than 10 minutes, 45 minutes 
vs less than
2 minutes (and that is compared to GCC 2.95... add appropriate numbers 
for GCC 3.x).
Precompiled headers is one solution and we have gained lot of ground
using PFE and PCH but still ...

As it was mentioned earlier in this thread, BSD and Linux developer 
also care
GCC's compilation speed. But most of them, I think, compare GCC 3.x 
against 2.95
hence  we (gcc developers) are lucky that they have not seen fastest 
alternative.

We are working very hard to gain ground, but meanwhile we can not lose 
ground
from 3.2 to 3.3.  Zem has identified two patches and this thread has 
not seen any constructive
discussions about them (in this mail, I'm also adding extra noise 
without much value).

So lets try to fix these already identified patches, since they are 
responsible for compile
speed regression.

-Devang
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/attachments/20030211/95dd2f38/attachment.bin>