From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3777 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 18:30:08 -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 3756 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 18:30:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sadr.equallogic.com) (66.155.203.134) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 18:30:07 -0000 Received: from sadr.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0JIU66c032050 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:30:07 -0500 Received: from deneb.dev.equallogic.com (deneb [172.16.1.99]) by sadr.equallogic.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0JIU6Ig032045; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:30:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.equallogic.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by deneb.dev.equallogic.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0JIU6u32511; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:30:06 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16396.8749.808340.551494@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:30:00 -0000 From: Paul Koning To: dewar@gnat.com Cc: coyote@coyotegulch.com, gdr@integrable-solutions.net, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <16396.1201.530000.430277@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <400C17CD.5080408@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01344.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar writes: Robert> Paul Koning wrote: >> It wouldn't satisfy me. C++ is just as important as C, and it is >> completely unreasonable to tell people that any host other than a >> year or two is "marginal". >> >> A point to keep in mind is that laptops make good hosts, but >> laptops are more memory-limited than desktops. Robert> Not really true these days. Most laptops have supported a Robert> gigabyte for years, and most laptops of today support two Robert> gigabytes. Robert> But that should be far beyond what is reasonably needed Robert> anyway. I think what would be most helpful is to try to agree Robert> very specifically on what is reasonable. Good. My view on laptops is different from yours, but by adopting the principle you suggest we don't have to sort out that difference. Robert> For example, we might say: Robert> All typical existing C++ code should be able to be compiled Robert> on a 256 meg PC running GNU/Linux without significant Robert> thrashing. Robert> That seems a reasonable expectation. Then we consider any Robert> violation of this as a bug, to be fixed like any other bug. Another thing we'd want to be able to talk about is the minimum config that will bootstrap gcc without a lot of thrashing. For a while, that config was dramatically larger than 256 (since it thrashed badly on my 384 meg laptop). paul