Re: Baby X is bor nagain

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c 
Sujet : Re: Baby X is bor nagain
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.c
Date : 24. Jun 2024, 18:51:25
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5c86d$11ac7$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 24/06/2024 16:10, Michael S wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:00:26 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

 
Your processor has a CPU-mark double that of mine, which has only two
cores, and is using one.
>
Building a 34-module project with .text size of 300KB, with either
gcc 10 or 14, using -O0, takes about 8 seconds, or 37KB/second.
>
 But my project has much more than 34 modules. 164 modules compiled
during build + several dozens in libraries.
Does that matter? My example is a smaller project, but I'm comparing the rate of compilation not total time.
If you want a bigger example, yesterday I posted one involving 140 .c files, total EXE size is 5MB (don't know .text as this is ELF format).
-O2 took just over twice as long as -O0.
But I guess every single example I come up with is 'exceptional'. Maybe what's exceptional is that I measuring the runtime of the compiler, and not all sorts of other junk.
You might claim that that other junk is necessary for the the build; I'd dispute that.

Your figures show about 50KB/second.
 text KB/second is hardly a good measure, esp. considering that we are
talking about different architectures. Mine is Altera Nios2 - 32-bit
RISC processor very similar to MIPS. The code density for this
architecture is significantly lower than on ARMv7 or x386 and even
somewhat lower than x86-64 and ARM64. The exact ratio depends on the
project, but 15-20% would be typical.
Also, part of text are libraries that we not compiled during this build.
But I would think that your .text size also includes libraries.
So, what is the total size of the code that is produced by the compilation? What is the data size?

I really don't believe it. And you should understand that it doesn't
add up.
>
 I am not lying.
I'm not saying that. I'm disputing that -O2 adds only 10% compared to -O0 when running only gcc.
  I am pretty sure that DavidB also tells truth.
I recommend to try to compile your C compiler with gcc.
My C compiler is not written in C. I can transpile to C, but then it would be a single large C file, which puts pressure on the optimiser:
   C:\cx>mc -c cc              # transpile to C
   Compiling cc.m to cc.c
   C:\cx>tm gcc cc.c           # -O0 build
   TM: 1.92
   C:\cx>tm gcc cc.c -O2
   TM: 9.22
It takes 380% longer compared with -O0. However the advantage is that I now have a whole-program optimised application. But this is not something I need to do routinely (maybe on production versions or running benchmarks).
Most of the time I don't need the optimised code (which is only about 40% faster) and can build like this:
   C:\cx>tm mm cc
   Compiling cc.m to cc.exe
   TM: 0.06
(If mm.exe is similarly boosted by via gcc, otherwise it takes 0.08s.)
So optimisation for this product take 150 times, or 15,000%, longer.
DB was however saying that he normally has optimisation turned on. Well I'm not surprised if turning it off makes only 11% difference! But he is not interested in super-fast builds such as those I work on.
Note that that 0.06 figure is for rebuilding my C compiler from scratch (200KB .text size, 300KB EXE size.), and 1/3 of it is Windows process overheads. Accurately measuring build-times when timings are near zero is difficult.

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