From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21850 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 16:24:37 -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 21750 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 16:24:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mallaury.noc.nerim.net) (62.4.17.101) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 16:24:32 -0000 Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie.gentiane.org [62.212.102.210]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B701D62D3D for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:24:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i0JGOTlM024228 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:24:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (from espie@localhost) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.9/8.12.1/Submit) id i0JGORZm011636 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:24:28 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:24:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040119162425.GA13253@tetto.gentiane.org> Reply-To: espie@nerim.net References: <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040119013113.044D74895@quatramaran.ens.fr> <400BB40B.4070101@dsvr.net> <400BE1D3.7010105@gnat.com> <400C00DF.5050006@coyotegulch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <400C00DF.5050006@coyotegulch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01299.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:07:59AM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Define a "lean-and-mean" build, perhaps focused on C, that reduces > system requirements and focuses on compilation speed. One of GCC's key > advantages is its support for "older" hardware. ^^ Nope, `used to be'. Yes, that's past sense. But older hardware is no longer really supported by GCC, between the large memory footprint and the huge compilation slowdown. I believe that's a choice that has been made by several people. There are compromises to be made, as always. And current GCC is going toward aggressive optimizations on modern hardware. Don't say it has `good support' for older hardware. The increased compilation times and memory footprint make that a complete lie. I, for one, would love to get it back to `normal' behavior, while keeping the aggressive optimization on newer machines. Another data point: I don't think I have an especially slow development machine (PIII 1.2GHz), even though it's two years old, and yet the project I work with entails compilation times of over a day...