GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[Andrew Haley]

H. J. Lu writes:
 > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:23:20AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Joe Buck writes:
 > >  > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:57:10PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
 > >  > > At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the
 > >  > > effort.  2.0 should be far more maintainable, and hopefully
 > >  > > significantly more efficient on hosts where the use of shell functions
 > >  > > optimized for properties of the build machine and/or the host
 > >  > > machine can bring us such improvement.
 > >  > 
 > >  > > Thoughts?
 > >  > 
 > >  > Richard Henderson showed that the libjava build spends 2/3 of its time
 > >  > in libtool, and that his hand-hacked (but not portable) modification to
 > >  > invoke the appropriate binutils commands directly gave a huge speedup.
 > > 
 > > Yes, but please bear in mind that this *only* happens when you have a
 > > machine with huge RAM.  For other people with small RAM, the link
 > > itself is an important factor.  Also, other people have found that the
 > > libtool script consumes a smaller part of total execution time: rth's
 > > measurements are at one extreme of the scale.
 > 
 > We have been working on linker speed. If you have a number to show
 > that the GNU linker is very slow on certain things, I will take a
 > look.

I haven't, no.  Ian Taylor reported the problem.

Andrew.