From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21521 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2005 19:15:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21445 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2005 19:15:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp2.libero.it) (193.70.192.52) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Apr 2005 19:15:46 -0000 Received: from localhost (172.16.1.80) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 41BDB66301E2326E; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:15:57 +0200 Received: from bagio (151.41.176.36) by smtp3.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 4270B376001501A3; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:15:37 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.308 [266.10.4]); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:15:39 +0200 Message-ID: <01ef01c54db8$feea3410$24b02997@bagio> From: "Giovanni Bajo" To: "Lars Segerlund" Cc: References: <20050427152844.GA86951@compsoc.man.ac.uk><426FB37D.3060507@3am-software.com><200504272157.21513.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl><1114694651.2729.237.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20050428162608.2aeac631@zeta.comsys.se> Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only? Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:22:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg01739.txt.bz2 Lars Segerlund wrote: > I have to agree with Richard's assessment, gcc is currently on the > verge of being unusable in many instances. > If you have a lot of software to build and have to do complete > rebuilds it's painful, the binutils guys have a 3x speedup patch > coming up, but every time there is a speedup it gets eaten up. This is simply not true. Most of the benchmarks we have seen posted to the gcc mailing lists show that GCC4 can be much faster than GCC3 (especially on C++ code). There are of course also regressions, and we are not trying to hide them. Did you *ever* provide a preprocessed source code which shows a compile-time regression? If not, please do NOT hesitate! Post it in Bugzilla. People that did it in the past are mostly satisfied by how GCC developers improved things for them. Otherwise, I do not want to sound rude, but your posts seem more like trolling to me. I am *ready* to admit that GCC4 is much slower than GCC3 or GCC2, but I would like to do this in front of real measurable data, not just random complaints and told legends. Thus, I am really awaiting your preprocessed testcases which prove your points. Please. Giovanni Bajo