On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote: > If we do a reasonable comparison of compile times against the intel compiler > or > the portland group or something similar we consistenly find that gcc is > slower > by a couple of times 1x - 3x, ( this is only my impression, not backed up by > hard data but should be in the ballpark ).
Please don't add additional speculation to this already messy subject. Feel free to come back with data. > The real killer seems to be large memory usage, and I have a hard time > believing that > if you compile fx. 1 meg of source the compiler 'have' to use some 800 megs > or > something as working memory. ( When speaking of the real killer here I mean > for > old systems ). With all the discussions on cache hit rate and similar > criterions > lately we can't forget that less data higher means hit rate. Same here. You've shown pretty clearly that you haven't looked at what GCC does with its memory usage. Yes, a lot of it is wasted, but a lot of that is constant factors (e.g. structures that are wastefully large), not things which would affect a non-linear blowup. Do you think it adds any value to GCC development to shout "please think about this problem" without any concrete suggestions? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
