From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89292-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22163 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 08:19:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22123 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 08:19:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost2.tudelft.nl) (130.161.180.2)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 08:19:44 -0000
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by rav.antivirus (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 904E05C24; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:19:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: from listserv.tudelft.nl (listserv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.33])
	by mailhost2.tudelft.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 869A05873; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:19:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: from steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (hekje1.shuis.tudelft.nl [145.94.192.78])
	by listserv.tudelft.nl (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0J8JiQP011027;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:19:44 +0100 (MET)
Received: by steven.lr-s.tudelft.nl (Postfix, from userid 500)
	id 397C399FC1; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:17:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: espie@quatramaran.ens.fr (Marc Espie), gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:19:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119034216.0593F48A4@quatramaran.ens.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20040119034216.0593F48A4@quatramaran.ens.fr>
Organization: SUSE Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200401190917.39997.stevenb@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01247.txt.bz2

On Monday 19 January 2004 04:42, Marc Espie wrote:
> In fact, I finally got around to building gcc-head, and comparing it
> to gcc 3.3.2.
>
> To say that the results are disappointing would be an understatement:
>
> Time for a kernel compile, gcc 3.3.2:
>   276.63s real   193.01s user    26.86s system
> with gcc-head:
>   341.31s real   213.25s user    27.87s system
>
> Exact same options, basically -O2.

But not just -O2?  What exact flags did you use?

> Now, tell me again that GCC is getting faster...

You haven't said if you compiled with checking disabled or not.  On
gcc-head, the compiler builds with many sanity checks enabled by
default.  If you try the 3.4 branch, checking is disabled by default,
or you have to configure with --disable-checking.

If you have checking disabled, these numbers indeed are depressing.
But I assure you, there are people who _do_ care about compiler speed,
and bug reports with specific slowdowns for some input are really
welcome!

Thanks for bringing this up again.  I think it's really sad that so
many people stick with 2.95 because later GCCs are slower.

Gr.
Steven