From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29803 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2004 04:11:40 -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 29791 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2004 04:11:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2004 04:11:39 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i213kKi23887; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:46:20 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i214BPM01060; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 23:11:25 -0500 Received: from [192.168.123.106] (vpn26-7.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.7]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i214BOX17236; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:11:24 -0800 Subject: Re: gcc and compiling speed From: Eric Christopher To: Theo de Raadt Cc: Zack Weinberg , Andrew Pinski , tech@openbsd.org, Marc Espie , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org List" In-Reply-To: <200403010405.i2145YgI006299@cvs.openbsd.org> References: <200403010405.i2145YgI006299@cvs.openbsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1078114283.4272.26.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 04:11:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 > On the box where you are right now, what is the speed difference > between gcc2 compiling your kernel, versus gcc3 compiling your kernel. > > Since I can bet gcc3 is slower for you, have you submitted detailed > test results for that? > No, because I don't care on the box I'm on. I have other cares, code quality and size mainly, for a different target (mips). > Frankly, as consumers of your compiler we don't have a clue how to > start submitting results like you are suggesting we do. Clearly it is > not about test cases when we can't find anything faster! > Marc has been told many times how to do so. Many people have asked and been told and submitted bugs on specific slowdowns that they want addressed. Everyone seems to be able to understand this - except you. You don't have a reputation for being particularly dense. I'll give you the same directions other people in this thread have given you though: 1) find a file that is compiling slower. 2) use -save-temps on the compile line and recompile it. 3) attach the resultant .i (or .ii if c++) to a bugzilla case that you file at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ > But if you want, keep on ignoring what we point out... I'm sure Redhat > keeps buying you faster machines... Actually, they don't, but it's not an important argument - we get complaints from people using machines that are much faster than mine. -eric -- Eric Christopher