From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2275 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 21:20:21 -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 2248 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 21:20:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 21:20:21 -0000 Received: from gnat.com (ppp1.gnat.com [205.232.38.211]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51ADF2DAE; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:20:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <400C4A0F.7010705@gnat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:20:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Botcazou Cc: Scott Robert Ladd , Gabriel Dos Reis , Nick Burrett , Marc Espie , geoffk@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <200401192120.53057.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <400C402F.9010400@gnat.com> <200401192207.58846.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> In-Reply-To: <200401192207.58846.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01384.txt.bz2 Eric Botcazou wrote: > Let's face it: from the user viewpoint (all is in the viewpoint :-), during > the past few years, GCC has exchanged a reasonably good code quality coupled > with a good compilation speed for a slightly better code quality and a > catastrophic compilation speed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's unjustified exaggeration. We have a lot of input from customers on the compilation time issue, and it is true that for a few of them, the increased compilation time for GCC 3 over GCC 2, which is as much as a factor of 2 in some cases is definitely significant. We also have a couple of cases where the memory requirements skyrocketed, but these were clearly bugs, and we are working on fixing the bug reports (as Eric knows :-) Yes, there is a problem, but it does not help for people to yell catastrophe when it is nowhere *near* that. Note that for other customers, the increased code quality from GCC 3 is highly significant, and easily worth any increase in compilation time.