From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22287 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 10:40:20 -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 22260 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 10:40:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.dsvr.co.uk) (212.69.192.9) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 10:40:13 -0000 Received: from dsvr.net (eth0.rt1.o1-1.tck.dsvr.net [::ffff:212.69.216.20]) by mail.dsvr.co.uk with esmtp; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:40:12 +0000 Message-ID: <400BB40B.4070101@dsvr.net> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:40:00 -0000 From: Nick Burrett Organization: Designer Servers Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031019 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis CC: Marc Espie , geoffk@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110002526.GA13568@disaster.jaj.com> <82D6F34E-4306-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110154129.GA28152@disaster.jaj.com> <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119013113.044D74895@quatramaran.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01252.txt.bz2 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > espie@quatramaran.ens.fr (Marc Espie) writes: > > | I do see the benefits, sure (I love the new preprocessor, except for the > | -traditional bug, and I really need a standard C++ compiler), but updating > | from 2.8.1 to 2.95 slowed our compiles by ~30%, and the on-going 2.95 to > | 3.3.2 update is slowing them by 30% more. Heck, we do have > | architectures that are NOT going to switch because the compile are > | really too slow now. There's even some chance only sparc64 will switch > | because 2.95 was completely crap on sparc64 (understandably so). > > We should probably require developers to use slow machines with small > rams. Semi ;-) There's no harm in that. I have a port of GCC 3.3.3 running on a 200MHz StrongARM that takes over 6 minutes to compile the following: #include int main (void) { std::cout << "Hello World" << std::endl; return 0; } GCC 2.95.4 compiled the same application on the same hardware in around 20-30 seconds. -- Nick Burrett Network Engineer, Designer Servers Ltd. http://www.dsvr.co.uk