On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Jay K <jay.kr...@cornell.edu> wrote: > > Wow that is fast. > > > My fastest machine, and I have several slower: > > > gmp > time sh -c "CC=gcc-4.2 ./configure none-none-none -disable-shared > -enable-static && make && ssh r...@localhost \"cd `pwd` && make install\"" > real 2m2.594s > > mpfr > time sh -c "./configure -disable-shared -enable-static && make && ssh > r...@localhost \"cd `pwd` && make install\"" > real 0m43.756s > > mpc > time sh -c "./configure -disable-shared -enable-static && make && ssh > r...@localhost \"cd `pwd` && make install\"" > real 0m15.495s > > > which is still a significant fraction of building cc1 (I don't have that time > sorry) > > I used to use Cygwin. Things add up much faster there. > > >> mpfr et al. If you're not, it only happens once. > > > Almost anything long but incremental can be justified via incrementality. > But there is also, occasionally, mass bouts of trying to get the configure > switches just right and > starting over repeatedly...at least me being unsure of incrementality in the > fact of rerunning configure... > > > Anyway, just putting it out there, probably won't happen, but configure > -without-mpc -without-mpfr might be nice > and aren't difficult, -without-gmp much better, but I can't yet claim it > isn't difficult. > Maybe, something like, if gmp is "in tree", after configure, the Makefile > could be hacked down > to omit mpf, mpq, and lots others, but then the linkage between gcc and gmp > gets messy. > i.e. as gmp changes.
No, we don't want that. It'll exlode the testing matrix and we'd get weird bugreports for missed optimizations. Richard. > > - Jay > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:37:04 +0100 >> From: a...@redhat.com >> To: jay.kr...@cornell.edu >> CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: eliminating mpc/mpfr and reducing gmp >> >> On 09/27/2010 01:23 AM, Jay K wrote: >> > >> > Hi. You know, gmp/mpfr/mpc are a significant >> > portion of building any frontend/backend. >> >> I disagree. Most of the time I don't notice them. >> >> > The result is a lot faster to build, if you are just doing a just >> > a single stage build of a compiler. >> >> Sure, but if you're working on the compiler you don't need to rebuild >> mpfr et al. If you're not, it only happens once. >> >> On my box, for mpc: >> >> real 0m2.624s >> user 0m3.336s >> sys 0m1.663s >> >> and for mpfr: >> >> real 0m4.484s >> user 0m12.006s >> sys 0m5.127s >> >> Andrew. > >
