Compiler Speed (not Speed of compiled application !!)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Lothar Scholz - 16 Dec 2003 07:19 GMT

I need a ultra fast c compiler as a backend to the GNU eiffel
compiler.
Under windows nothing beats borland c++ builder. It is a factor 10
faster then gcc, which i find unuseable slow for larger program
compilations.

How does codewarrior compares to gcc in compilation speed ?
Is there any other simple (i don't need any optimizations during
development) c compiler, maybe a lcc port ?

Reply to this Message

Miro Jurisic - 16 Dec 2003 07:50 GMT

> How does codewarrior compares to gcc in compilation speed ?

N-fold faster, where 2 <= N <= 5

meeroh

Signature

If this message helped you, consider buying an item
from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>

Reply to this Message

Dave Baum - 16 Dec 2003 16:29 GMT

> I need a ultra fast c compiler as a backend to the GNU eiffel
> compiler.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Is there any other simple (i don't need any optimizations during
> development) c compiler, maybe a lcc port ?

I used to think CW was 2-3x faster than gcc, but then I realized I was
always using precompiled headers with CW, and never used them in gcc.
Once I started using precompiled headers with gcc, the speed difference
wasn't so pronounced. Link time used to be a huge problem with gcc, but
I have been using zero-link during development, so link time is no
longer an issue for my development builds. CW still feels faster, but
only 10-20% faster, not 2-3x anymore.

Dave

Reply to this Message

MW Ron - 16 Dec 2003 18:01 GMT

>> I need a ultra fast c compiler as a backend to the GNU eiffel
>> compiler.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>longer an issue for my development builds. CW still feels faster, but
>only 10-20% faster, not 2-3x anymore.

This all depends on the build. The size of the build, if files are
cached, the search path order, recursive searches , optimizations,
inlining, and more. If you use your own precompiled headers with
CodeWarrior they might be faster than just using the standard generic
ones.

Apple has done a nice job with gcc but I think we are still much faster
than gcc in even up projects.

Ron

Signature

Metrowerks wishes you and yours
Seasons Greetings and Happy Holidays

Get Geekware and Software http://store.metrowerks.com
Shop our online store and get free shipping until Dec 31

Ron Liechty - MWRon@metrowerks.com - http://www.metrowerks.com

Reply to this Message

Mikey - 16 Dec 2003 19:33 GMT

> >I used to think CW was 2-3x faster than gcc, but then I realized I was
> >always using precompiled headers with CW, and never used them in gcc.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Apple has done a nice job with gcc but I think we are still much faster
> than gcc in even up projects.

Yeah, I agree totally on this (not that anyone cares..). Raw gcc with
precompiled headers is noticably slower, IMHO. I had long compiles and
a relatively short link. I made CW versions (this was v7) and they were
much faster, especially for full-up rebuilds. The precomps were _way_
faster. A little C++ but mostly C, this was.

I think that spending the time to really refine your project (headers,
precomps, et al) pays off a hundredfold in day-to-day build time, and
helps weed out potential problems. It never hurts to pick through that
project carefully. You get out what you put in, I think.

Then again, I look forward to long builds, so that I can go gossip and
have popsicles.

Reply to this Message

Lothar Scholz - 16 Dec 2003 23:44 GMT

> This all depends on the build. The size of the build, if files are
> cached, the search path order, recursive searches , optimizations,
> inlining, and more. If you use your own precompiled headers with
> CodeWarrior they might be faster than just using the standard generic
> ones.

Does the CodeWarrior compiler (not the IDE) uses threads so that it
get an advantage from the new dual G5 machines ?
I can start parallel compiles with a special script. But at least for
the linking step it would be useful to support threads.

If CodeWarrior is not faster then gcc it is not a really good news.
I don't have a Mac at the moment but i was looking for an alternative
to develop UNIX software with Fink. Linux is really bad here and i
never got Kylix 3 to compile my ANSI C99 code.

Reply to this Message

Miro Jurisic - 17 Dec 2003 11:26 GMT

> > This all depends on the build. The size of the build, if files are
> > cached, the search path order, recursive searches , optimizations,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Does the CodeWarrior compiler (not the IDE) uses threads so that it
> get an advantage from the new dual G5 machines ?

> If CodeWarrior is not faster then gcc it is not a really good news.

IME compiling C++, CW on a uniprocessor machine is faster than gcc on a dual
processor machine, if all other specs are equal.

meeroh

Signature

If this message helped you, consider buying an item
from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>

Reply to this Message

MW Ron - 17 Dec 2003 15:04 GMT

>> This all depends on the build. The size of the build, if files are
>> cached, the search path order, recursive searches , optimizations,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Does the CodeWarrior compiler (not the IDE) uses threads so that it
>get an advantage from the new dual G5 machines ?

There is nothing special about it other than the advantages the OS
provides

>I can start parallel compiles with a special script. But at least for
>the linking step it would be useful to support threads.

I'm told that CodeWarrior linker is still much faster, and it does stuff
like deadstrip etc that are further steps with GCC

>If CodeWarrior is not faster then gcc it is not a really good news.
>I don't have a Mac at the moment but i was looking for an alternative
>to develop UNIX software with Fink. Linux is really bad here and i
>never got Kylix 3 to compile my ANSI C99 code.

We have a much bigger advantage in CodeWarrior IDE over XCode compared
to command line tools. I could have an Eval CD sent to you but if you
don't have a Mac that isn't much help.

Ron

Signature

Reply to this Message

Mac Forum / Programming / CodeWarrior / December 2003

Compiler Speed (not Speed of compiled application !!)