From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27543 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2003 21:18:49 -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 27535 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 21:18:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.goquest.com) (12.18.108.6) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 21:18:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25627 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jan 2003 21:18:38 -0000 Received: from mszick@goquest.com by mail.goquest.com by uid 502 with qmail-scanner-1.15 (spamassassin: 2.31. Clear:. Processed in 0.923828 secs); 30 Jan 2003 21:18:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.90.216.7) by mail.goquest.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 21:18:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Michael S. Zick To: Neil Booth , Benjamin Kosnik Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:58:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <20030130122910.34b2ecd5.bkoz@redhat.com> <20030130202129.GB12150@daikokuya.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030130202129.GB12150@daikokuya.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <03013015125200.00984@localhost.localdomain> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01673.txt.bz2 On Thursday 30 January 2003 02:21 pm, Neil Booth wrote: > Benjamin Kosnik wrote:- > > > 3) Any kind of attempt at compile-time regressions or compile time > > performance at all. Dropping the release criteria, or ignoring the > > release criteria that deals with compile time performance is > > unacceptable. Sane defaults in the garbage collector would be a big win > > here. > > As I pointed out elsewhere, changing a GC default is simply papering > over the problem; we're not really getting any faster. > > But it's worse than that - if someone later comes along with > improvements that improve our algorithms and data structures (those are > where the real problems lie), the new GC default is going to reduce or > eliminate the impact of that improvement, an impact that would have been > noticeable had the GC defaults not been changed, and the improvement > is less likely to happen. > So, lets make part of the testing protocal: "disable GC" My following this list does not date back to the 2.95.x era - so I don't know "how it used to be done". Other recent messages on the M-L mention various URL's with hints... I have several machines collecting dust here; they could be doing something useful - if someone could contact me with details of what and how you need things to be done. Mike