From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15223 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 22:03:58 -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 15216 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 22:03:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 22:03:57 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (213.36.54.163) by mail.libertysurf.net (6.5.033) id 3FFAFEDA0115773E; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:03:50 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Eric Botcazou To: Geoff Keating Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Scott Robert Ladd , Robert Dewar , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nick Burrett , Gabriel Dos Reis , Marc Espie References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <200401192120.53057.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <51C2CB76-4AC7-11D8-90DA-0030657EA24A@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <51C2CB76-4AC7-11D8-90DA-0030657EA24A@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200401192304.01694.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01390.txt.bz2 > I would look at it this way: Why should a professional developer based > in the US try to make GCC work on anything less than this machine? > It's clearly not cost-effective to spend any significant time doing so. My point of view is exactly reverse :-) Why should a developer not keep GCC working on such a machine? I think it may have been partially shared by the SC, because there used to be a criterion for compilation time degradation between releases (15% IIRC). Was it even checked once? -- Eric Botcazou