From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10778 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2004 10:23:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4257 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2004 10:20:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.58) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Jun 2004 10:20:16 -0000 Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5PAJxLI016154; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:19:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i5PAKFvv020056; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:20:15 +0100 Received: (from rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i5PAKEv3020054; Fri, 25 Jun 2004 11:20:14 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha set sender to rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org using -f Subject: Re: Patch to allow Ada to work with tree-ssa From: Richard Earnshaw To: Laurent GUERBY Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Geoffrey Keating , Richard Kenner , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <1088102802.4924.69.camel@pc.site> References: <10406221853.AA08995@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1088081063.774.39.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <1088102802.4924.69.camel@pc.site> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: GNU Message-Id: <1088158813.19565.23.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:51:00 -0000 X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg02054.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 19:46, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:44, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > Measurements I took last night show that bootstrap times on > > i386-netbsdelf have increased by 7% in the last 40 days alone. That's > > on top of the increase in time due to introduction of tree-ssa. > > It would be more interesting to have a fixed piece of code compile time, > like a stable release with some tools, daily CVS bootstrap time is a > poor indicator of compile time speed, it can vary greatly for > reasons unrelated to pure compile speed. Look again at the context of the post. You'll then notice that the comment was in reference to the increase of bootstrap times over a long period of time -- my point was that in the last month alone there had been a further large increase. In the context of this particular post, I really don't believe that we've increased the size of the GCC code base by 7% in the last 40 days, so I assert that the compiler must have got slower in that time as well. R.