[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Install INTEL C-Compiler and rebuild the COMPLETE System
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Install INTEL C-Compiler and rebuild the COMPLETE System
- From: Hannah Schroeter <hannah_(_at_)_schlund_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:46:23 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 03:35:05PM -0400, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
>Frankly, I don't care how long it takes to compile usually.
>I dealt with multi-day gcc bootstraps on Sparc 1's and 2's.
>Emacs used to be a several hour build.
>That's what other windows are for.
You don't seem to be a software developper. For me, turnaround
times are very important, and increasing the compile times by a
factor of more than 2 definitely makes me less productive (and that
factor is from a comparison of gcc 2.95 vs gcc 3.2, icc has compile
times similar to gcc 3.2). Speed of the resulting binary is less
important in the development cycle.
>How fast they RUN is, often, important (of often its not,
>really. the 10/90 & 90/10 rules apply here).
Code speed may be important, but less than you'd expect. How many
people use scripting languages with rather slow interpreters?
How many people use a compiled language, but inefficiently?
Of course, best would be *both*: Fast turnarounds for development,
and then, by changing just one compiler switch, fast code, perhaps
with higher compilation times.