From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25804 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 17:54:58 -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 25787 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 17:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 17:54:57 -0000 Received: from gnat.com (ppp1.gnat.com [205.232.38.211]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D756CF2DAE; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:54:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C19EE.6010600@gnat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:54:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: espie@nerim.net Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119013113.044D74895@quatramaran.ens.fr> <400BB40B.4070101@dsvr.net> <400BE1D3.7010105@gnat.com> <400C00DF.5050006@coyotegulch.com> <20040119162425.GA13253@tetto.gentiane.org> In-Reply-To: <20040119162425.GA13253@tetto.gentiane.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01315.txt.bz2 Marc Espie wrote: > Another data point: I don't think I have an especially slow development > machine (PIII 1.2GHz), even though it's two years old, and yet the > project I work with entails compilation times of over a day... That is presumably a time and not space complaint (i.e. the day does not come from virtual memory disk thrashing). To me, a project that requires a compilation time of a day on a 1.2GHz machine is indeed indicative of a non-functional compiler. I definitely agree that this kind of performance should be considered to be a bug. My direct interaction with gcc is most typically complete bootstraps of GNAT, which take about 10 minutes on my laptop, which seems slow but acceptable. Dealing with a project where recompilation takes a day is I agree well outside the acceptable range. That being said, it seems to me to undervalue time to be using a two year old machine and tolerating builds that slow when a modern notebook with a 3GHz processor and 800MHz front bus can be obtained for under $2000. And one general comment here is that using such a notebook, I still find MANY things to be slow, and gcc is not the worst offender by any means (Mozilla's junk mail detection, while excellent, for example, consumes vast amounts of cycles and how Power Point manages to take as long as it does to come up is a mystery to me). I guess the software world has become really *expert* at making things take thousands of times longer than they should :-(