Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy

"John Fremlin" <vii@penguinpowered.com>
5 Nov 2000 20:48:27 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
50 times longer to compile than copy smnsn@my-deja.com (2000-11-04)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy ian@jawssystems.com (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy vii@penguinpowered.com (John Fremlin) (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy s337240@student.uq.edu.au (Trent Waddington) (2000-11-05)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy chase@naturalbridge.com (David Chase) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy Sid-Ahmed-Ali.TOUATI@inria.fr (Sid Ahmed Ali TOUATI) (2000-11-07)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy ONeillCJ@logica.com (Conor O'Neill) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2000-11-09)
Re: 50 times longer to compile than copy christl@belinda.fmi.uni-passau.de (2000-11-09)
[2 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: "John Fremlin" <vii@penguinpowered.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 5 Nov 2000 20:48:27 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 00-11-034
Keywords: performance

smnsn@my-deja.com writes:


> I was thinking that there's a lower limit on the amount of time
> it would take to compile my source into this executable; an optimally
> fast compiler would still have to read in the source code and write
> out the executable, so you can't get any faster than how much time it
> takes to do that. That made me think that the amount of time it takes
> to copy this file would be an interesting measure against the amount
> of time it takes to compile.


You have to think about all the headers #included by your program and
all other objects (libraries) you link with to get a comparable
measurement, which would probably partly explain the large time
difference.


[...]
--
http://john.snoop.dk




Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.