From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28702 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 16:07:43 -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 28683 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 16:07:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 16:07:41 -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 i0KFiBS31330; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:44:11 -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 i0KG7eM29249; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 11:07:40 -0500 Received: from roscoe.artheist.org (vpn50-44.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.44]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i0KG7cb15949; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:07:38 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:07:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Cc: espie@nerim.net Subject: Re: A quick summary of gcc compilation speed from a political point of view Message-Id: <20040120100542.42889a0f.bkoz@redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat / Chicago Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01511.txt.bz2 > So parhaps you can work with GGC developers on providing better > development tools for that or provide some good way to measure > compilation speed (SPEC tests do have compilation time graphs but they > are not too usefull as they are with checking enabled and SPECs are too > small to make changes visible in the noise). Or you can find some other > way to contribute to GCC. You know, I strongly agree with this. One of the big problems with the speed issue is that it's so invisible: every time there is a new release, somebody invariably complains it's slower than the last release. Until then, nobody seems to notice, even though there are ostensibly minimal speed requirements in the release criteria. What's really needed is some kind of regular posting to gcc-testresults that indicate the time it took to do a make check, or the time it took to compile some known sources, etc. Perhaps contrib/test_summary could be modified to do something like report the time to run make check? If we had this, then people would have an easier time pinpointing slowdowns. Also, the developers would be able to see exactly what compilation performance was for various platforms, which would be an excellent starting point. Personally, I always run time make check Just to make sure that PCH is not broken. But, I digress. -benjamin