From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24616 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24585 invoked by uid 61); 2 Nov 2002 01:40:58 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021102014058.24583.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gisli@adams.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gisli@adams.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/2183: gcc-3_0-branch compiles 2x slower than 2.95 X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: gcc-3_0-branch compiles 2x slower than 2.95 State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Fri Nov 1 17:40:57 2002 State-Changed-Why: I think a compile-time regression in this range must be expected due to the switch to libstdc++ v3 alone. Add some new optimizations, and you're there, so I think one should classify this as "more features make things slower". Needless to say that I do not find the general trend too good either... http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=2183