Re: Baby X is bor nagain

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: Baby X is bor nagain
De : already5chosen (at) *nospam* yahoo.com (Michael S)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 24. Jun 2024, 15:09:41
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
User-Agent : Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:47:46 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

On 21/06/2024 14:34, David Brown wrote:
On 21/06/2024 12:42, bart wrote: 
On 21/06/2024 10:46, David Brown wrote: 
>
>
I understand your viewpoint and motivation.  But my own
experience is mostly different.
>
First, to get it out of the way, there's the speed of
compilation. While heavy optimisation (-O3) can take noticeably
longer, I never see -O0 as being in any noticeable way faster for
compilation than -O1 or even -O2. 
>
Absolute time or relative? 
 
Both.
 
For me, optimised options with gcc always take longer: 
 
Of course.  But I said it was not noticeable - it does not make
enough difference in speed for it to be worth choosing.
 
 
  C:\c>tm gcc bignum.c -shared -s -obignum.dll        # from cold 
  TM: 3.85 
 
Cold build times are irrelevant to development - when you are
working on a project, all the source files and all your compiler
files are in the PC's cache.
 
 
 
  C:\c>tm gcc bignum.c -shared -s -obignum.dll 
  TM: 0.31
 
  C:\c>tm gcc bignum.c -shared -s -obignum.dll -O2 
  TM: 0.83
 
  C:\c>tm gcc bignum.c -shared -s -obignum.dll -O3 
  TM: 0.93
 
  C:\c>dir bignum.dll 
  21/06/2024  11:14            35,840 bignum.dll 
 
Any build time under a second is as good as instant.
 
I tested on a real project, not a single file.  It has 158 C files
and about 220 header files.  And I ran it on my old PC, without any
"tricks" that you dislike so much, doing full clean re-builds.  The
files are actually all compiled twice, building two variants of the
binary.
 
With -O2, it took 34.3 seconds to build.  With -O1, it took 33.4
seconds.  With -O0, it took 30.8 seconds.
 
So that is a 15% difference for full builds.  In practice, of
course, full rebuilds are rarely needed, and most builds after
changes to the source are within a second or so. 
 
Then there's something very peculiar about your codebase.
 


To me it looks more likely that your codebase is very unusual rather
than David's

In order to get meaningful measurements I took embedded project that
is significantly bigger than average by my standards. Here are times of
full parallel rebuild (make -j5) on relatively old computer (4-core Xeon
E3-1271 v3).

Option time(s) -g time text size
-O0    13.1      13.3   631648
-Os    13.6      14.1   424016
-O1    13.5      13.7   455728
-O2    14.0      14.1   450056
-O3    14.0      14.6   525380

The difference in time between different -O settings in my measurements
is even smaller than reported by David Brown. That can be attributed to
older compiler (gcc 4.1.2). Another difference is that this compiler
works under cygwin, which is significantly slower both than native
Linux and than native Windows. That causes relatively higher make
overhead and longer link.
If I had were "native" tools then all times will be likely shorter by
few seconds and the difference between -O0 and -O3 will be close to 10%.






Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Jun 24 * Baby X is bor nagain322Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `- Mac users (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
12 Jun 24 i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
11 Jun 24 +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain313Bonita Montero
11 Jun 24 i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain309Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain308Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain305David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain301bart
12 Jun 24 ii i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
12 Jun 24 ii i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Bonita Montero
12 Jun 24 ii i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
12 Jun 24 ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain296David Brown
12 Jun 24 ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain295Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i   +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Malcolm McLean
13 Jun 24 ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain293David Brown
13 Jun 24 ii i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5bart
13 Jun 24 ii i    i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3tTh
13 Jun 24 ii i    ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
14 Jun 24 ii i    ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Bonita Montero
13 Jun 24 ii i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Michael S
13 Jun 24 ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain287Michael S
14 Jun 24 ii i     +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
14 Jun 24 ii i     i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
15 Jun 24 ii i     i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
17 Jun 24 ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain283James Kuyper
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain86Kaz Kylheku
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Are Javascript and Python similarly slow ? (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)1Michael S
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
17 Jun 24 ii i      i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain80David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain79Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain78David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1DFS
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Mark Bourne
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain67Michael S
18 Jun 24 ii i      ii   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain65Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i+* Re: Baby X is bor nagain59Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain58Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain56David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain55Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain54David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain53Malcolm McLean
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain10bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain7David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain6bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1bart
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3David Brown
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2bart
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   i      `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i   `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain42David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i    `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain41Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i     `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain39Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Malcolm McLean
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1vallor
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      i `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain27Keith Thompson
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i       `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain26Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Michael S
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Ben Bacarisse
20 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2James Kuyper
21 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
22 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i        `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain20Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i         `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain19Ben Bacarisse
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9James Kuyper
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain8Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain4Ben Bacarisse
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Tim Rentsch
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Ben Bacarisse
25 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i i  `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Tim Rentsch
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Keith Thompson
24 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          i  `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain2Tim Rentsch
23 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii i          `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain9Tim Rentsch
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   ii `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Keith Thompson
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain5David Brown
19 Jun 24 ii i      ii   `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1David Brown
18 Jun 24 ii i      i+- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1James Kuyper
20 Jun 24 ii i      i`- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Vir Campestris
17 Jun 24 ii i      +* Re: Baby X is bor nagain193bart
17 Jun 24 ii i      `* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3Malcolm McLean
12 Jun 24 ii `* Topicality is not your strong suit (Was: Baby X is bor nagain)2Kenny McCormack
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: Baby X is bor nagain3bart
11 Jun 24 `- Re: Baby X is bor nagain1Kalevi Kolttonen

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal