Re: What makes a difference in the resulting compiler's speed when building gcc?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 27/10/16 17:30, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Sven C. Dack wrote:

I've been installing private copies of gcc for a while now, but only recently did I notice that my distro's gcc (Debian testing) is doing much better when comparing compile times than any of my copies. For instance does it take 230s for my copy to compile a linux kernel, but only 163s for my distro's gcc, which is almost a minute in difference for something that doesn't take more than 3-4 minutes to compile.

What makes this noteworthy for me is that I've compiled my copy with profiledbootstrap and LTO enabled and also optimized it for my CPU, whereas the distro's compiler won't have been optimized quite that much, but yet is it so much faster in speed. I don't know how exactly my distro's gcc has been set up, because the Debian build rules are rather complex and include their own set of patches. So I thought I start with asking here first.

What is that can make such a huge difference in compile speed for two copies of gcc, both version 6.2, using the same options, on the same source? Or are any of the configure options know to have a huge impact on the resulting compiler's speed?

--enable-checking=release would be the first thing to check.

Thank you, will do.

I can already say that I am using "yes", because I'm using the latest git
versions and have always favoured a reasonable amount of checks. If this is
already the cause for the difference then I might actually keep it this way.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux C Programming]     [Linux Kernel]     [eCos]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Announce]     [Autoconf]     [The DWARVES Debugging Tools]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux GCC]

  Powered by Linux