From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27964 invoked by alias); 4 May 2005 13:53:33 -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 27788 invoked from network); 4 May 2005 13:53:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta10-winn.mailhost.ntl.com) (212.250.162.18) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 May 2005 13:53:16 -0000 Received: from aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com ([212.250.162.8]) by mta10-winn.mailhost.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20050504135315.ONJG6374.mta10-winn.mailhost.ntl.com@aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:53:15 +0100 Received: from cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com ([82.16.12.40]) by aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20050504135314.PIY10174.aamta07-winn.mailhost.ntl.com@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:53:14 +0100 Received: from littlepinkcloud.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j44Dr2uJ018851; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:53:03 +0100 Received: (from aph@localhost) by littlepinkcloud.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id j44DqxmR018847; Wed, 4 May 2005 14:52:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17016.54202.964880.559353@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 13:54:00 -0000 From: Andrew Haley To: "H. J. Lu" Cc: Joe Buck , Alexandre Oliva , David Edelsohn , Andreas Schwab , Richard Earnshaw , Andrew Pinski , Paul Koning , s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, matt@3am-software.com, cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only? In-Reply-To: <20050504134157.GA5261@lucon.org> References: <1114694844.2729.240.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <17008.59023.361787.925505@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <200504281609.j3SG9ZD27524@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20050428164727.GB30649@synopsys.com> <200504281654.j3SGs0D27158@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20050503220342.GA23969@synopsys.com> <17016.41624.799846.161219@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <20050504134157.GA5261@lucon.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 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.