From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3695 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 03:04:24 -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 3683 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 03:04:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 03:04:22 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0K34Lcb021834 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:04:21 -0800 Received: from apple.com (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248]) by relay3.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0K34KN7020163; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:04:20 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:04:00 -0000 Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Geoff Keating , Eric Botcazou , Scott Robert Ladd , Robert Dewar , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nick Burrett , Gabriel Dos Reis , Marc Espie To: Alexandre Oliva From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <57A7F01C-4AF5-11D8-B42C-003065A77310@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01433.txt.bz2 On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 06:43 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I know Apple has put a lot of effort on speeding up the compiler, and > I can only find it sad that such efforts are fundamentally > incompatible with the relatively-scalable approach to speeding builds > up, namely, the use of compiler farms with distcc, Mosix or similar > techniques. ? Call me confused. Give me a Mosix cluster and the compile server, and I'll show you fast compilation... What parts of it do you think are incompatible? We do distcc and PCH today, perfectly compatible as well. We don't do ccache and PCH, but I don't see why that is any harder than simple to get working. I'm wanna try my hand at ccache built into the compile server on a 64 bit machine and see how well it works in practice... :-) Certainly I see 100x+ speedups now with it with small testcases. PCH and the compile server are playing together nicer than I'd imagine. Anyone have a Mosix cluster they want to donate some time on? :-) Are you by chance referring to the fact that we don't do fine gained db in the compiler's data structures and share those across compile servers? If so, I'm yet to be convinced that that would be wise to do. Maybe. If it is, it isn't fundamentally incompatible, in fact, it is a possibly planned development line, it just won't be in the first version checked into mainline.