From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89380-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21473 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 18:18:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21435 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 18:18:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 18:18:18 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA00339; Mon, 19 Jan 04 13:20:32 EST
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:18:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10401191820.AA00339@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: zack@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure?
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01335.txt.bz2

    Does your opinion change if the target parameters are properly
    redesigned, as I suggested in another message to this thread?

Somewhat, but I still wonder whether the complexity of such a scheme
is worth the ability to have common .o files.