From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3704 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2002 22:00:07 -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 3691 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2002 22:00:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (129.22.96.25) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 31 Dec 2002 22:00:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 19012 invoked by uid 500); 31 Dec 2002 22:00:16 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC still getting a lot slower References: <20021231215422.GA2032@doctormoo> In-Reply-To: <20021231215422.GA2032@doctormoo> (Nathanael Nerode's message of "Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:54:22 -0500") From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Mail-Copies-To: nobody Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 16:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090008 (Oort Gnus v0.08) Emacs/21.2 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01678.txt.bz2 Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Paul Jarc said: >> Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>> Frankly, I don't think we should look at bootstrap time. A number of >>> the largest changes in B-I-B were necessary build process changes, which >>> are quite likely to slow down the build *of* the compiler, but not the >>> performance of the compiler. Or, in other words, "so what?". ;-) >> >> As someone else noted a while ago, bootstrap times are important >> because changes are tested by bootstrapping. So slow bootstraps slow >> down all other progress. > > Yeah. But when I said 'necessary', I meant it; these changes have been > on the TODO list forever, and they're correctness issues. I wasn't disputing that - just pointing out that bootstrap times are indeed important, in answer to your "so what". paul