From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15749 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 12:05:49 -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 15741 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 12:05:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp0.libero.it) (193.70.192.33) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 12:05:49 -0000 Received: from bagio (151.41.184.52) by smtp0.libero.it (7.0.020-DD01) id 3F6F1CE702217168; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:05:40 +0100 Message-ID: <2f1f01c3df4d$b8184520$34b82997@bagio> From: "Giovanni Bajo" To: , References: <20040120100340.GA2214@tetto.gentiane.org> Subject: Re: A quick summary of gcc compilation speed from a political point of view Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:05:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01475.txt.bz2 Marc Espie wrote: > But that's not the point. > > The point is that, right now, GCC is each day becoming more unusable > as a compiler on any host that isn't ix86. A point *I* would like to make is that there are a lot of people interested in different areas of development. Some of them actually do files bug reports (for instance, we get all kind of advanced C++ compatibility bug reports from the Boost people - and we actually fix them). Some of them, like you, never filed a single bug report since we started our bug database (4 years ago or something). At least, this is what Bugzilla told me. Marc, compile time regressions are seriously taken by GCC developers. But they're not something that are *easily* noticed. It's not like a crash in a testsuite which is immediatly noticed by the tests. We strongly need bug reports to be able to fix them, because they're more hideous. Are you preparing a bug report for the OpenBSD kernel compile-time regression you showed us? Giovanni Bajo