Subject: Is gcc slow? Or is our gcc slow?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Julian Bean <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/04/1996 18:30:23
I have always found gcc to be rather slow on my NetBSD machine, and a
recent example really brought it home.

I was compiling ImageMagick on my LCIII running port-mac68k.  That's a
25Mhz 68030 with FPU, and 12M of RAM.

ImageMagick has some really monster files - this one was 10K lines long.

And it took about 10 minutes.

Admittedly, it only had about 50% of the CPU to itself, but even so....

I am fairly sure that Think C 5.0 for the Macintosh compiled at 60K
lines/minute on a IIci.  And a IIci is also a 25Mhz 68030 with an FPU.  Now
that wasn't optimized, and this is gcc -O2, but I still don't think that
makes up for it.

It seems inconceivable that a Macintosh, running it's horribly inefficient
multi-tasking single-user OS, could  out-perform a NetBSD box of the same

I might have to write glue libs so that I can compile my kernels Mac-side
in Symantec C++, if that's the case...

Also, sed is stupendously slow.  It is *much* quicker to use perl -wpi.back
-e than it is to use sed.  That's pretty odd as well...

Just some thoughts..


|  Jelibean aka  |           |  6 Evelyn Road      |
|  Jules aka     |                               |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   |(|  TW9 2TF    *UK*    |
|  The Other Place - n. (pop.) Depending on the affiliation of the     |
|  speaker, one of Oxford, Cambridge, The House of Lords, The House of |
|  Commons, Hell.  Draw your own conclusions.                          |