On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 15:06 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > > > > > > Using quick (in theory) and trusty cpgram.ii, I get: > > > > > > > > tree PTA :1135.48 (88%) usr 5.47 (55%) sys1168.23 (85%) > > > > wall 4045 kB ( 1%) ggc > > > > TOTAL :1283.62 9.97 1381.98 > > > > 451745 kB > > > > > > This is uh, like 20 minutes wall time. > > > So where is 10 hours coming from? > > > > this says cpgram.ii, not bootstrap/make check cycle. Big difference. > > BTW, what do you think these have to do with each other? > nothing except thats its C++ code and I had it handy. I thought You had fixed this and was making sure that if you had you were aware there was a regression. Hence I asked: "Is this new code, or is this the old issue we had a few weeks ago? I lost track." > > *particularly* when the other issue you keep harping on has in fact, > been shown *not* to increase GCC compile time by the regression > testers. what other issue have I harped on? One note asking about mainline bootstrap/make check that seemed excessively long? I don't recall ever "harping on" about anything else except possibly discussing this cpgram issue a few weeks ago. Andrew
