From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25563 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2002 21:42:50 -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 25556 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2002 21:42:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.122) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2002 21:42:48 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-16-193.twcny.rr.com [24.24.16.193]) by mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/RoadRunner 1.20) with ESMTP id gBVLgYF22470 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:42:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from neroden by doctormoo with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18TU8S-0000WU-00 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:41:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:11:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC still getting a lot slower Message-ID: <20021231214116.GA1953@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Nathanael Nerode X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01673.txt.bz2 Diego Novillo wrote: >On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Paolo Carlini wrote: > >> Neil Booth wrote: >> >> >Any idea what killed GCC bootstrap time in Mid-Dec? >> > >> Wild guess >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2002-12/msg00481.html >> >>Very likely. Bootstrap times for C and Fortran went from 2,000 >secs on 2002-12-16 to 2,500 secs on 2002-12-17 (25% slowdown). > >http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec95/gcc/gcc-stats.html Frankly, I don't think we should look at bootstrap time. A number of the largest changes in B-I-B were necessary build process changes, which are quite likely to slow down the build *of* the compiler, but not the performance of the compiler. Or, in other words, "so what?". ;-) Can we test compile time change of some *fixed* piece of code, perhaps? --Nathanael