From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-169355-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 6645 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2011 16:30:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 6628 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2011 16:30:23 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,TW_IB
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.160.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:30:05 +0000
Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so1177913gyd.20        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.43.19 with SMTP id v19mr3625857ybj.444.1310920203195; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.205.2 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 09:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201107171330.55167.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
References: <mcroc0u3ef5.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>	<mcrbowt3kc9.fsf@coign.corp.google.com>	<CAFiYyc0CKgVMrbuLqeAND9xzUHuOnSAnMmr-VA4xnJbOm=pMLg@mail.gmail.com>	<201107171330.55167.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:55:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc330ukt8KvK88z5PaqgYm6Aps92Dk8dN6ZRYCMPCOKEmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, 	Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower
>> (comparing C bootstrap with C++ in stag1 languages with C++ bootstrap,
>> not sure if that included bootstrapping libstdc++ for the former).
>
> IMO acceptable now that the build time of libjava has been halved.

Actually the penalty for using C++ was only 1.5%, that of bootstrapping C++ and
libstdc++ was 15%.  For reference:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-06/msg00100.html

Richard.