From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6042 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 02:46:51 -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 6035 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 02:46:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 02:46:49 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7U2mWca027185 for ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:48:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay1.apple.com (relay1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.12) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:46:49 -0700 Received: from [17.219.198.77] ([17.219.198.77]) by relay1.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7U2kWuA004479; Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:46:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <023b01c48e35$0f5ef9f0$8f432597@bagio> References: <4132641E.3030206@codesourcery.com> <200408300148.54421.stevenb@suse.de> <41326EBF.9020501@codesourcery.com> <200408300229.13652.stevenb@suse.de> <41327A88.5080903@codesourcery.com> <023b01c48e35$0f5ef9f0$8f432597@bagio> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Mark Mitchell From: Matt Austern Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:09:00 -0000 To: Giovanni Bajo X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01442.txt.bz2 On Aug 29, 2004, at 7:00 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> If people want to put GCC 3.5 off until next >> June, and SC approves, it's OK with me. > > I think this should be seriously considered. Given the large number of > incomplete projects (partly merged like the vectorizer, or being > worked on > offline), and the fact that we are currently maintaing *two* stable > release > branches, I don't think we should *rush* at releasing 3.5. Waiting > another 6 > months could be a good compromise. What do others think about this? > >> 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. I am sure I am not 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. You are not the only person who cares about C++ compilation times at -O0. This is a major concern for Apple, and I expect that improving C++ -O0 compilation time will be my primary activity for some time. I don't think the current status it too awful, actually, but we do still have a way to go. Do you have any suggestions for improving -O0 compile speed? --Matt