----Original Message----
>From: David Edelsohn
>Sent: 27 April 2005 16:32
>>>>>> Matt Thomas writes:
>
> Matt> That's all positive but if GCC also becomes too expensive to build
> then Matt> all those extra features become worthless. What is the
> slowest system Matt> that GCC has been recently bootstrapped on?
>
> GCC recently was bootstrapped on a VAX.
>
> The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
> commercial compilers with similar functionality. And the GCC developers
> ave plans to address inefficiencies -- GCC 4.0 often is faster than GCC
> 3.4.
>
> David
I'm a bit concerned about the increasing bootstrap times as well.
I wanted to test a small patch at the weekend, so I checked out a couple
of copies of HEAD, modified one slightly, then set two full "make bootstrap;
make check" runs going. This is on a 850Mhz Athlon. It took over 24 hours.
In 2.95.x days it would have taken maybe three or three-and-a-bit hours on
the very same machine.
This makes it very much slower and more difficult to submit properly
tested patches.
I don't have any good ideas how to deal with this really, without cutting
down on the overall amount of testing (either explicitly, by not running the
full testsuite, or implicitly, by disabling most of the languages at
configure time). I would like to be thorough, but find it quite a handicap.
Suggestions are welcome!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
