2 ms·
No idea, maybe a lot from the system headers. However, it was 20,000 lines of code that survived the preprocessor, 11,000 of which were inline or template from
by civility 9y ago
No idea, maybe a lot from the system headers. However, it was 20,000 lines of code that survived the preprocessor, 11,000 of which were inline or template from the project itself.
- comex 9y ago- A large fraction of compiler time is spent on code generation; how many of those lines did the compiler actually generate code for? (i.e. not unused functions or uninstantiated templates) (And in the case of uninstantiated templates, a C++ compiler doesn't even need to type check them…) - Did you have optimizations enabled?
- civility 9y ago> how many of those lines did the compiler actually generate code for? Not many. How many lines would a comparable Rust program have to instantiate? (should be the same) All I was trying to do was make an apples to apples comparison by discrediting the implication that the clang++ and g++ compilers are only faster because people use separate compilation units. I think it's fair to compare Rust and C++ this way, and if Rust is slower to compile, then it's fair to ask why. > Did you have optimizations enabled? Yes, -O3. Also -Wall -Wextra and -fwrapv if you're interested.