From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19723 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2013 11:52:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19714 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2013 11:52:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from Unknown (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:52:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A52126A0050; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:52:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iQt6bxxrpTWd; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:51:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from polaris.localnet (bon31-6-88-161-99-133.fbx.proxad.net [88.161.99.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC3DC26A0044; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:51:59 +0100 (CET) From: Eric Botcazou To: Bernd Schmidt Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Richard Biener , Jeff Law , David Malcolm , Andrew MacLeod Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Conversion of gimple types to C++ inheritance (v3) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3052278.L4yPqpJBlj@polaris> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.2 (Linux/3.1.10-1.29-desktop; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <527A21DB.301@codesourcery.com> References: <5271CBF9.2070005@redhat.com> <527A21DB.301@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 > Maybe we need to revisit it? As one of those who were not in favour of > the C++ move, can I ask you guys to step back for a moment and think > about - what do all of these changes buy us, exactly? Imagine the state > at the end, where everything is converted and supposedly the temporary > ugliness is gone, what have we gained over the code as it is now? Without going as far as revisiting the decision, I'd like to ask whether the impact of the recent changes on the speed of the compiler has been evaluated. I didn't conduct real measurements but bootstrap times on mainline, which were slightly increasing as usual over the course of the year, started to increase at a faster pace over the last couple of months, at least for me. -- Eric Botcazou