From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8797 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2003 00:36:38 -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 8781 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 00:36:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 00:36:37 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h0V0a8jj019589; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:36:08 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h0V0a7K0019588; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:36:07 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Benjamin Kosnik Cc: Matt Austern , neil@daikokuya.co.uk, mrs@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4 References: <20030130234724.GA14191@daikokuya.co.uk> <29740D00-34AE-11D7-A344-000393B2ABA2@apple.com> <20030130182943.660dc943.bkoz@redhat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030130182943.660dc943.bkoz@redhat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 01:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01707.txt.bz2 Benjamin Kosnik writes: | >I would look at it a different way. It does improve the compiler, so | >we should do it. But it doesn't identify where the 3.2 -> 3.3 | >regression came from; I think we're still no closer to identifying | >that regression than we were. | | Agree, 100%. There are two issues. | | 1) Magic constants, setting memory to 16MB, improving compile speed | right now. Arguments that bumping up this value doesn't speed compiles | are ludicrous, and ignore experimental evidence. | | 2) figuring out what happened between 3.2 and 3.3, or 3.4 and 3.3. There | are no clear fixes for this right now. There are a lot of clever people | looking at it so I'm sure something will eventually turn up. I believe (but I may be worng) that Neil's argument is that once 1) is done, people will ignore or won't be interested into solving 2)... until it pops again in later versions. Quite understandable. On the other hand, 3.3.0 deadline is approaching and people would like to concentrate on other issues. Again, quite understandable. -- Gaby