Matthias Troyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 07:36 PM, Daniel Yerushalmi wrote:
>
>> <SNIP>
>> I'll try to do it at least once to see which parts of boost we can use,
>> and see how much CPU time this gobbles up. If it is not too much, I
>> will talk to our sysadmins if they would allow me to do it about once a
>> month. I don't think that testing more often would be possible, since
>> already compiling only the filesystem library takes about 15 minutes.
>> </SNIP>
>> ?
>> How come? on my lowly PC it take less then a
>> minute... (compiling just the
>> filesystem)
>>
>> /Daniel Yerushalmy
>
> A Cray is optimized for peak-floating point performance
> even for out-of-cache codes and optimized for that and
> not for compile time. There are several reasons why it
> is slow:
>
> i) in order to optimize the runtime performance the
> machine does not use virtual memory for a process,
> which makes dynamic allocation very slow. If I need
> more memory than was allocated initially, the whole
> process is swapped out and has to wait for a later time
> slice when more memory can be allocated. This is common
> when compiling template-heavy code.
>
> ii) the fast vector units do not help anything for compiling the code.
Just one question: why the heck don't they make a cross-compiler which
runs on a machine better-suited to compilation?
> iii) the optimizer is very aggressive, checking every piece of code
> for vectorization and parallelization possibilities, which makes it
> even slower. I don't think your PC compiler does that.
There's no reason it couldn't, though.
> And finally, it actually only takes about 10 minutes to compile :)
Utterly painless! ;-)
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
