On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My bootstrap/make check cycle took about 10 hours with yesterdays
> > checkout (way longer than expected). A quick investigation shows C++
> > compilation timed are through the roof.
>
> 10 hours?
read carefully. "bootstrap/make check"
>
> >
> > 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?
One is a pathological testcase with about 10000-50000 initializers,
the other is a whole bunch of relatively normal code.
So why would you attempt to draw conclusions about bootstrap/regtest
from cpgram.ii?
*particularly* when the other issue you keep harping on has in fact,
been shown *not* to increase GCC compile time by the regression
testers.
