Path: ...!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 21:25:15 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <86wmglnvic.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> <20241128143715.00003565@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 06:25:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbb822f8f85af8befb29db6227d47c5b";
	logging-data="1611253"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+eyECNsbbFuPZFS8CCL9JPiHWESzmYvxM="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zJHgR83w6oQjjOkj5ZtKRhy0Abg=
	sha1:1y2WeycX9Zb4XRo1SvjyD8x5CD8=
Bytes: 5439

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 21:18:09 -0800
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> 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.
>
> My impression was that Bart is talking about machine-generated code.
> For machine generated code 250Kloc is not too much.  I would think
> that in field of compiled-code HDL simulation people are interested
> in compilation of as big sources as the can afford.

Sure.  But Bart is implicitly saying that such cases make up the
bulk of C compilations, whereas in fact the reverse is true.  People
don't care about Bart's complaint because the circumstances of his
examples almost never apply to them.  And he must know this, even
though he tries to pretend he doesn't.

>> And of course you picked the farthest-most
>> outlier as your example, grossly misrepresenting any sort of
>> average or typical case.
>
> I remember having much shorter file (core of 3rd-party TCP protocol
> implementation) where compilation with gcc took several seconds.
>
> Looked at it now - only 22 Klocs.
> Text size in .o - 34KB.
> Compilation time on much newer computer than the one I remembered, with
> good SATA SSD and 4 GHz Intel Haswell CPU - a little over 1 sec.  That
> with gcc 4.7.3.  I would guess that if I try gcc13 it would be 1.5 to 2
> times longer.
> So, in terms of Klock/sec it seems to me that time reported by Bart
> is not outrageous.  Indeed, gcc is very slow when compiling any source
> several times above average size.
> In this particular case I can not compare gcc to alternative, because
> for a given target (Altera Nios2) there are no alternatives.

I'm not disputing his ratios on compilation speeds.  I implicitly
agreed to them in my earlier remarks.  The point is that the
absolute times are so small that most people don't care.  For
some reason I can't fathom Bart does care, and apparently cannot
understand why most other people do not care.  My conclusion is
that Bart is either quite immature or a narcissist.  I have tried
to explain to him why other people think differently than he does,
but it seems he isn't really interested in having it explained.
Oh well, not my problem.