Don, el 1 de junio a las 20:15 me escribiste: > Michiel Helvensteijn wrote: > >Adam Ruppe wrote: > > > >>>You save time by recompiling only files that have changes. > >>But, then the whole program goes through the process again anyway to > >>perform the optimization. You save a little time in skipping parts of > >>the front end for unchanged file, but the whole backend process has to > >>happen anyway. > > > >That `backend' process is not the compilation process all over again. It's > >not even the optimizer phase all over again. It's just the extra > >optimizations that could not be performed on a file-by-file basis. > > > >Or at least it should be. > > It really needs to be able to perform inlining, and that means it's > still a fair chunk of the optimiser. It's true that link-time > optimisation means that much of the front-end compilation can be > skipped, which is a huge fraction of the total time in C++. > (Certainly you can skip the parsing step completely). But it's a > much smaller fraction of the total time in D. So it isn't the big > win for D that it is for C++.
LTO is not only targeted at C++. I don't have numbers to talk seriously about how a big gain is for C though, which might be closer to D in terms of parse time compared with the whole compilation process. Even more, you can do LTO for object files generated from different languages. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- En la calle me crucé con un señor muy correcto, que habitualmente anda en Falcon; iba corriendo con dos valijas en la mano y dijo: "Voy para Miami, tiene algún mensaje o ..." y le dije: "No, no, no..." -- Extra Tato (1983, Triunfo de Alfonsín)
