From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9606 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2004 23:53:13 -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 9597 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2004 23:53:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca) (130.113.218.59) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Jan 2004 23:53:11 -0000 Received: from coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5973B5AAC3 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:53:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (hahn@localhost) by coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id i0JNrAat015989 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:53:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:53:00 -0000 From: Mark Hahn X-X-Sender: hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal In-Reply-To: <200401192246.52526.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01415.txt.bz2 > I think we can both agree that all is in the balance between code quality > improvement and compilation speed degradation. the problem is that this discussion is being dominated by the sqeaky wheel phenomenon. who's likley to complain about compiler speed? people who somehow can't afford a beefy machine, and yet want to use gigantic UI frameworks or breathtaking template tricks. GCC still works VERY well for traditional Unix-style code, even on small machines, even with sane use of C++. the real problem is not that gcc sometimes compiles a little slower, but that so very many people have abandoned GCC in favor of the better performance, F90 support and OpenMP available in Intel's compilers. IMO, GCC should ignore compiler performance unless regressions are >= 2x. and when a tradeoff is necessary, 5% better code is worth 2x compile time. obviously, I'm interested in code that is run more often than compiled. but isn't that the whole point of a compiler? maybe another factor is people trying to use GCC where they should use a scripting language instead. regards, mark hahn.