Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> My plan going forward is as follows (when we are back in stage 1):
FWIW, I think this is a great plan.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Neumann
wrote:
> Curious. I ran both g++ variants in oprofile, and then compared the
> generated assembler code for the most critical functions.
>
> The top 1 function in both cases is pointer_set_insert, and there the
> assembler code is 100% identical (mod
Curious. I ran both g++ variants in oprofile, and then compared the
generated assembler code for the most critical functions.
The top 1 function in both cases is pointer_set_insert, and there the
assembler code is 100% identical (module one choice between r14 and r15).
The second most critical
Ben Elliston wrote:
> Try using -ftime-report.
thanks, that was what I had in mind.
The largest difference seems to be in "tree STMT verifier" (36% runtime
increase), a few others increased slightly, most seem to be nearly
identical. (This distribution could be an artifact of my example code, of
On Sat, 2009-04-11 at 22:37 +0200, Thomas Neumann wrote:
> Is there any reasonably simple way to find out why the C++ version is
> slower? I can use something like oprofile, of course, but I thought
> gcc can somehow give statistics about its internal times, which might
> be more useful for a fir
Is there any reasonably simple way to find out why the C++ version is
slower? I can use something like oprofile, of course, but I thought
gcc can
somehow give statistics about its internal times, which might be
more useful
for a first approximation.
I think you're thinking about the -Q opti
>> Also, is there any significant difference in bootstrap times?
>
> I haven't actually measured, but subjectively bootstrap does seem to
> take longer.
I tried this out of curiosity. The numbers below are the bootstrap times on
a 64bit 2.6.28 Linux system (Core 2 E8400), building single threaded
On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 21:25 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Also, is there any significant difference in bootstrap times?
>
> I haven't actually measured, but subjectively bootstrap does seem to
> take longer.
A subjective assessment was all I was interested in.
Thanks,
Ben
Ben Elliston writes:
>> I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
>> compiler when built with g++ rather than gcc. E.g. testsuite regressions,
>> changes in the speed or size of cc1, etc. Also, is cc1 linked with
>> libstdc++.so ? Stuff like that.
>
> Also, is t
> I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
> compiler when built with g++ rather than gcc. E.g. testsuite regressions,
> changes in the speed or size of cc1, etc. Also, is cc1 linked with
> libstdc++.so ? Stuff like that.
Also, is there any significant differenc
Laurent GUERBY writes:
> On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 18:44 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
>> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
>
> Hi, did you test with Ada enabled? There are some C files in th
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" writes:
> I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
> compiler when built with g++ rather than gcc. E.g. testsuite regressions,
> changes in the speed or size of cc1, etc. Also, is cc1 linked with
> libstdc++.so ? Stuff like that.
>
> Would you
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
>
> My plan going forward is as follows (when we are back in stage 1):
>
> * For each difference b
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 18:44 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
Hi, did you test with Ada enabled? There are some C files in the
Ada compiler and RTS.
Laurent
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
> is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
Great work, thanks!
I'm curious whether there are any detectable differences in the resulting
compiler when
I'm happy to report that the gcc-in-cxx branch can now bootstrap. That
is, the code in gcc proper can now be compiled with a C++ compiler.
My plan going forward is as follows (when we are back in stage 1):
* For each difference between trunk and gcc-in-cxx:
+ Try to implement a -Wc++-compat wa
16 matches
Mail list logo
