Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Benchmarks For gcc-3.1

Posted by timothy on from the starting-gate-opens dept.

Isle writes: "Another good story found via OSNews. Scott Robert Ladd has updated his GCC vs Intel C++ compiler benchmark. Now you can find gcc 3.1 benchmarked against gcc 3.0.4 and icc 6.0. The summary must be that gcc 3.1 is a lot faster than gcc 3.0.4 for very abstract C++ code, but icc is still slightly faster overall."

4 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Speed of compilation by psavo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm really am curious of how you develop.
    I personally just write the code down, compile, run with debugger. I note worst mistakes, write them down, correct values in memory and continue test run until it've gone as far as it can without modifying code.
    After this all is done, I correct code with my notes, and begin it all over again.
    With this use, actual compiling is not slow if it takes 3-5 mins.
    yeah, daily recompile load is about 700k C++ code + 200k headers (+100k vendors).

    Some time ago I had to recompile with P133, and it took (with watcom 11.0c) approx 7min, which _felt_ like a lot. at the same time I was able to modify code in emacs, so that wasn't such a bad deal until we had a really fast call.

    --
    fucktard is a tenderhearted description
  2. Re:Speed of compilation by devphil · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Absolutely. Anybody who uses a single compiler on an important project (at least during the development stage) is just begging for problems later on down the road.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  3. Re:Speed of compilation by rikkus-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been coding long enough that I don't make too many mistakes. The problem is that if I change something low down in the dependency tree, lots of stuff gets rebuilt, and this takes time.

    Also, thanks to the complexity of C++, there is no refactoring browser (that I know of) so if I change a method signature, I have to use the compiler to tell me what needs 'fixing'.

    Of course, vim is able to jump to warnings/errors generated by gcc, which helps quite a bit.

    I'm currently working on about 50k lines of C++ code, where a rebuild can take anywhere from 3.5s for one file (no problem) to 90s for a change that affects more code. I'm currently using gcc 2.95.3. gcc 3.1 is much slower.

    I'm using make -j 2 on a dual athlon, and I forward declare where possible to save time.

    I would just prefer the focus of gcc development to shift from execute speed to compile speed. But the gcc people are free to do what they wish, it's not like I'm paying them ;)

    Rik

  4. What about 2.9x? by ameoba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering that GCC 2.9x is still shipping with most distros, and is the only one that compiles the kernel yet, why not show some comparisons with it, in addition to GCC 3.x and ICC? Why only benchmark fringe compilers, when a vast majority of Linux users will be rocking the older compiler?

    --
    my sig's at the bottom of the page.