From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-89436-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18244 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 22:09:00 -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 18232 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 22:08:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail13.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.51)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 22:08:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 28154 invoked by uid 503); 19 Jan 2004 22:09:15 -0000
Received: from d213-103-42-181.cust.tele2.fr (HELO ?192.168.0.108?) (laurent%guerby.net@213.103.42.181)
  by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 22:09:15 -0000
Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
From: Laurent GUERBY <laurent@guerby.net>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Cc: Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>, Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>,  Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>, Nick Burrett <nick@dsvr.net>, Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>, geoffk@apple.com,  gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <200401192246.52526.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com>
	 <200401192207.58846.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
	 <1074546942.11041.8.camel@dzur.sfbay.redhat.com>
	 <200401192246.52526.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1074550095.28477.35.camel@pc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:09:00 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01391.txt.bz2

On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 22:46, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> I think we can both agree that all is in the balance between code quality 
> improvement and compilation speed degradation.

FWIW, I'd gladly accept compilation being 2-3 times slower for a 5-10%
gain in execution speed at high optimisation levels,
from both my home user and work user point of view.

At low optimisation levels, I'd love a switch that makes optimisations
that are somewhat cheap relatively to -O2/3 at the compile time level,
reduce generated code and debug information size for faster linking than
-O0 and still allow perfect debugging ("-Od"?).

BTW, people with old machines always have the choice of staying with old
software too.

Laurent