Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:23361 comp.lang.c++:5252 gnu.g++:483
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!well!nagle
From: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,gnu.g++
Subject: Re: A solution to the multiple inclusion problem
Keywords: #include c c++
Message-ID: <14291@well.UUCP>
Date: 26 Oct 89 17:39:16 GMT
References: <14240@well.UUCP> <1989Oct23.191634.6345@cs.rochester.edu> <1989Oct24.060920.28655@cs.rochester.edu>
Reply-To: nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle)
Distribution: comp
Lines: 18

In article <1989Oct24.060920.28655@cs.rochester.edu> ken@cs.rochester.edu writes:
->But is this really as inefficient as people think? I tried the
->following on a Sun-4/60
->
->% wc grammar0.cc
->     932    2944   19700 grammar0.cc
->% g++ -I../h -E grammar0.cc | wc
->    3728    8219   63497
->% time g++ -I../h -E grammar0.cc > /tmp/foo.cc
->0.4u 0.3s 0:01 44% 0+208k 0+9io 0pf+0w
->
->Looks pretty insignificant compared to parsing and CG time.

       What are you comparing to what?  Only one time measurement is given.
This makes it rather meaningless to draw any conclusions.


					John Nagle