From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16489 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 14:25:05 -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 16466 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 14:25:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ams005.ftl.affinity.com) (216.219.253.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 14:25:03 -0000 Received: from coyotegulch.com ([4.4.125.218]) by ams.ftl.affinity.com with ESMTP id <3574061-21213>; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 09:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: <400D39CE.3030902@coyotegulch.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:25:00 -0000 From: Scott Robert Ladd User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031107 Debian/1.5-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Stump CC: Robert Dewar , Eric Botcazou , Gabriel Dos Reis , Nick Burrett , Marc Espie , geoffk@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <21A8E98A-4AED-11D8-B42C-003065A77310@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <21A8E98A-4AED-11D8-B42C-003065A77310@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01493.txt.bz2 Mike Stump wrote: > Yes, but the sad thing is that I suspect it is 50% slower or more on a 8 > GHz machine as well, in fact, I wonder if it is worse than 50% slower. What do we gain in terms of language support and generated code speed, in return for slower compile times? We keep talking about C++, but C compile times have slowed too... -- Scott Robert Ladd Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com) Software Invention for High-Performance Computing