From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28059 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2002 21:47:36 -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 28052 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2002 21:47:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (129.22.96.25) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2002 21:47:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 15391 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2002 21:47:45 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC still getting a lot slower References: <20021231214116.GA1953@doctormoo> In-Reply-To: <20021231214116.GA1953@doctormoo> (Nathanael Nerode's message of "Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:41:16 -0500") From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01675.txt.bz2 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Frankly, I don't think we should look at bootstrap time. A number of > the largest changes in B-I-B were necessary build process changes, which > are quite likely to slow down the build *of* the compiler, but not the > performance of the compiler. Or, in other words, "so what?". ;-) As someone else noted a while ago, bootstrap times are important because changes are tested by bootstrapping. So slow bootstraps slow down all other progress. > Can we test compile time change of some *fixed* piece of code, perhaps? That would also be useful, in its own way. paul