Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: else ladders practice
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:03:17 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <861pytpb3e.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <3deb64c5b0ee344acd9fbaea1002baf7302c1e8f@i2pn2.org> <vg3b98$3cc8q$1@dont-email.me> <vg5351$3pada$1@dont-email.me> <vg62vg$3uv02$1@dont-email.me> <vgd3ro$2pvl4$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vgdc4q$1ikja$1@dont-email.me> <vgdt36$2r682$2@paganini.bofh.team> <vge8un$1o57r$3@dont-email.me> <vgpi5h$6s5t$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vgtsli$1690f$1@dont-email.me> <vhgr1v$2ovnd$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vhic66$1thk0$1@dont-email.me> <vhins8$1vuvp$1@dont-email.me> <vhj7nc$2svjh$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vhje8l$2412p$1@dont-email.me> <86y117qhc8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vi2m3o$2vspa$1@dont-email.me> <86cyiiqit8.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vi4iji$3f7a3$1@dont-email.me> <86mshkos1a.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vi9ukc$ib2v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 06:03:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbb822f8f85af8befb29db6227d47c5b";
	logging-data="1611253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/5vbRaVUNkKxcq1pHJ6Y0c8mKKfl5OQo="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p526dCC46DVYDk2HXdHHfEqMzKc=
	sha1:dq++Ho0eMJxJFZpqFZfK3PNoPJA=
Bytes: 3678

Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

> On 28/11/2024 05:18, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 26/11/2024 12:29, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 25/11/2024 18:49, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's funny how nobody seems to care about the speed of
>>>>>>> compilers (which can vary by 100:1), but for the generated
>>>>>>> programs, the 2:1 speedup you might get by optimising it is
>>>>>>> vital!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think most people would rather take this path (these times
>>>>>> are actual measured times of a recently written program):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        compile time:       1 second
>>>>>>        program run time:   ~7 hours
>>>>>>
>>>>>> than this path (extrapolated using the ratios mentioned above):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        compile time:       0.01 second
>>>>>>        program run time:   ~14 hours
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to think of some computationally intensive app that
>>>>> would run non-stop for several hours without interaction.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion is the same whether the program run time
>>>> is 7 hours, 7 minutes, or 7 seconds.
>>>
>>> Funny you should mention 7 seconds.  If I'm working on single
>>> source file called sql.c for example, that's how long it takes for
>>> gcc to create an unoptimised executable:
>>>
>>>    c:\cx>tm gcc sql.c            #250Kloc file
>>>    TM:  7.38
>>
>> Your example illustrates my point.  Even 250 thousand lines of
>> source takes only a few seconds to compile.  Only people nutty
>> enough to have single source files over 25,000 lines or so --
>> over 400 pages at 60 lines/page!  -- are so obsessed about
>> compilation speed.  And of course you picked the farthest-most
>> outlier as your example, grossly misrepresenting any sort of
>> average or typical case.
>
> It's not atypical for me! [...]

I can easily accept that it might be typical for you.  My
point is that it is not typical for almost everyone else.