From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18002 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 01:59:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17947 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 01:59:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp20.libero.it) (193.70.192.147) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 01:59:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (172.16.1.79) by smtp20.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 40E3F8E700997554; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:59:51 +0200 Received: from bagio (151.37.67.143) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 40CB2A080351B542; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 04:00:04 +0200 Message-ID: <023b01c48e35$0f5ef9f0$8f432597@bagio> From: "Giovanni Bajo" To: "Mark Mitchell" Cc: References: <4132641E.3030206@codesourcery.com> <200408300148.54421.stevenb@suse.de> <41326EBF.9020501@codesourcery.com> <200408300229.13652.stevenb@suse.de> <41327A88.5080903@codesourcery.com> Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:46:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at libero.it X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01439.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell wrote: > If people want to put GCC 3.5 off until next > June, and SC approves, it's OK with me. I think this should be seriously considered. Given the large number of incomplete projects (partly merged like the vectorizer, or being worked on offline), and the fact that we are currently maintaing *two* stable release branches, I don't think we should *rush* at releasing 3.5. Waiting another 6 months could be a good compromise. What do others think about this? > Otherwise, I think we > proceed, and accept that the release will be useful to some people > and less useful to others. (It will, for example, be useful to > people who need support for new targets, or want gfortran, or want > faster non-optimizing compile times, which we are now seeing for some > C++ programs.) As for C++ programs, I would like to remember that when tree-ssa was merged, there were big C++ compile time issues at -O0, which used to be in the merge requirement list, but were not met. There was agreement that these would be tackled after the merge, possibly by running a couple of cleanup optimization passes (DCE/CCP). I never heard of this project again since then, and the issues seems to have been forgotten. I am sure I am not the only one who cares about C++ compilation times at -O0: we got substantially better with 3.4 (even wrt 2.95), but now we are regressing way too much. IMHO, bugs like PR 15678 (C) and PR 13776 (C++) should be showstoppers for branching 3.5. Giovanni Bajo