From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1457 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2005 18:10:57 -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 1432 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2005 18:10:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kiruna.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.80) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Apr 2005 18:10:53 -0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by kiruna.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F6FF322; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA17202; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.10/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j3SIAqjW031196; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:10:52 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id j3SIAptO031194; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:10:51 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:16:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Matt Thomas Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only? Message-ID: <20050428181051.GA31155@synopsys.com> References: <200504272157.21513.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <17007.61667.295386.348123@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <200504272236.08632.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <17007.64393.265815.431382@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <42712587.80901@3am-software.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42712587.80901@3am-software.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg01646.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:03:51AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: > > Someone complained I was unfair in my gcc bootstrap times since > some builds included libjava/gfortran and some did not. > > So in the past day, I've done bootstrap with just c,c++,objc on > both 3.4 and gcc4.1. I've put the results in a web page at > http://3am-software.com/gcc-speed.html. The initial bootstrap > compiler was gcc3.3 and they are all running off the same base > of NetBSD 3.99.3. > > While taking out fortran and java reduced the disparity, there > is still a large increase in bootstrap times from 3.4 to 4.1. There's some new code in libstdc++ now (the TR1 stuff) that (last time I looked) takes a long time to build, and wasn't in 3.4. Could that be a factor? A comparison with just --enable-languages=c would eliminate any issues with libraries.