Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> wrote: >> Except it's not just bootstrapping GCC. It's everything. When the >> NetBSD Project switched from 2.95.3 to 3.3, we had a noticeably >> increase in time to do the "daily" builds because the 3.3 compiler >> was so much slower at compiling the same OS source code. And we're >> talking almost entirely C code, here. > > Well, there are two different issues. Matt was originally talking > about bootstrap time, at least that is how I took it. You are talking > about speed of compilation. The issues are not unrelated, but they > are not the same. > > The gcc developers have done a lot of work on speeding up the compiler > for 3.4 and 4.0, with some success. On many specific test cases, 4.0 > is faster than 3.3 and even 2.95. The way to help this process along > is to report bugs at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla. > > In particular, if you provide a set of preprocessed .i files, from, > say, sys, libc, or libcrypto, whichever seems worst, and open a gcc PR > about them, that would be a great baseline for measuring speed of > compilation, in a way that particularly matters to NetBSD developers.
I would also like to note that I *myself* requested preprocessed source code to NetBSD developers at least 6 times in the past 2 years. I am sure Andrew Pinski did too, a comparable amound of times. These requests, as far as I can understand, were never answered. This also helped building up a stereotype of the average NetBSD developer being "just a GCC whine troll". I am sure this is *far* from true, but I would love to see NetBSD developers *collaborating* with us, especially since what we are asking (filing bug reports with preprocessed sources) cannot take more than 1-2 hours of their time. Giovanni Bajo
