From: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
To: akpm@digeo.com, hps@intermeta.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:07:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200306222007.h5MK7CS7000136@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> (raw)
> No, the build system is OK. And ccache nicely fixes up any mistakes which
> the build system makes, and distcc speeds things up by 2x to 3x.
>
> None of that gets around the fact that code needs to be tested with various
> combinations of CONFIG_SMP, CONFIG_PREEMPT, different subarchitectures,
> spinlock debugging, etc, etc. If the compiler is slow people don't bother
> doing this and the code breaks.
>
> Cause and effect.
Are the benchmarks that show gcc 3.3 to be much slower at compile time
being done with a natively compiled gcc 3.3? I.E. gcc 3.3 compiled
with itself?
When I upgraded a few machines from 2.95.3 to 3.2.3, I noticed that
the last of the three compiles, (I.E. a gcc-3.2.3 compiled gcc-3.2.3
compiling the gcc-3.2.3 source), was noticably quicker than the first
two, to the extent that it was easily mesaurable by a wall clock.
I am just wondering whether there gcc-3.X binaries in use that were
compiled with gcc-2.95.3, that are swaying benchmarks in favour of
2.95.3 compiled with itself.
I haven't benchmarked gcc-2.95.3 compiled with gcc-3.2.3, though.
John.
next reply other threads:[~2003-06-22 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-22 20:07 John Bradford [this message]
2003-06-22 20:27 ` GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning) Michael Buesch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-23 7:40 John Bradford
2003-06-23 13:17 ` Larry McVoy
2003-06-22 19:03 John Bradford
2003-06-21 19:51 [PATCH] Isapnp warning Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 1:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2003-06-22 2:17 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 13:22 ` GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning) Daniel Phillips
2003-06-22 17:32 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-22 18:58 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-06-22 19:12 ` Sam Ravnborg
2003-06-22 19:13 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-22 19:32 ` Henning Schmiedehausen
2003-06-22 19:51 ` Adrian Bunk
2003-06-22 19:12 ` Daniel Phillips
2003-06-23 1:05 ` Larry McVoy
2002-01-04 11:32 ` Pavel Machek
2003-07-17 10:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-07-17 10:23 ` Jakub Jelinek
2003-07-17 10:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200306222007.h5MK7CS7000136@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk \
--to=john@grabjohn.com \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=hps@intermeta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).