From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
To: Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: C++ compile-time regressions (was: GCC 3.0.1 Status Report)
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:56:00 -0000
Message-id: <873d7neape.fsf@cgsoftware.com>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0107190925220.7949-100000@taygeta.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <200107202341.f6KNfkC62782@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg01530.html

Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:

> 
> Next, we would study the code generation processing at various
> optimization levels.  Gerald's data displays the issue of code
> generation speed for real application code, and I have no better
> example to post off-hand.  I am the only one that finds it odd that
> -O0 takes longer to compile than -O1, -O2 and -O3 under 2.95.3?

It shouldn't take longer to compile at -O1,-O2,-O3 than -O0, because
the slow parts of the compiler don't have as much code to wade
through.

> 
> Regards,
> Loren

-- 
"I wrote a few children's books...  Not on purpose.
"-Steven Wright