From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-101571-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14525 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 07:10:48 -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 14488 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 07:10:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 07:10:43 -0000
Received: from extimap.suse.de (extimap.suse.de [195.135.220.6])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF8DAEED12;
	Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:08:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from stevenb.home.suse.de (70-90.ipact.nl [82.210.90.70])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by extimap.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AD080F32C; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:08:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de>
To: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it>,
	"Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:24:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <4132641E.3030206@codesourcery.com> <41327A88.5080903@codesourcery.com> <023b01c48e35$0f5ef9f0$8f432597@bagio>
In-Reply-To: <023b01c48e35$0f5ef9f0$8f432597@bagio>
Organization: SUSE Labs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408300908.32374.stevenb@suse.de>
X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01461.txt.bz2

On Monday 30 August 2004 04:00, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Otherwise, I think we
> > proceed, and accept that the release will be useful to some people
> > and less useful to others.  (It will, for example, be useful to
> > people who need support for new targets, or want gfortran, or want
> > faster non-optimizing compile times, which we are now seeing for some
> > C++ programs.)
>
> As for C++ programs, I would like to remember that when tree-ssa was
> merged, there were big C++ compile time issues at -O0, which used to be in
> the merge requirement list, but were not met. There was agreement that
> these would be tackled after the merge, possibly by running a couple of
> cleanup optimization passes (DCE/CCP). I never heard of this project again
> since then, and the issues seems to have been forgotten.

The issue is not forgotten.  We've tried it and even just the
combination of DCE/CCP destroys too much of the original program
(e.g. user variables) for it to be debugable.


> I am sure I am not the only one who cares
> the only one who cares about C++ compilation times at -O0: we got
> substantially better with 3.4 (even wrt 2.95), but now we are regressing
> way too much.

I believe a lot of people care.

Gr.
Steven