From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7497 invoked by alias); 20 Jan 2004 02:44:11 -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 7299 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 02:44:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2004 02:44:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0K2hxl16753; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:43:59 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i0K2hxa11389; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:43:59 -0500 Received: from livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (aoliva.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.1.10]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0K2hvR0031020; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:43:58 -0500 Received: from livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br [127.0.0.1]) by livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0K2hva0016061; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:43:57 -0200 Received: (from aoliva@localhost) by livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0K2huZ3016057; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:43:56 -0200 To: Geoff Keating Cc: Eric Botcazou , Scott Robert Ladd , Robert Dewar , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Nick Burrett , Gabriel Dos Reis , Marc Espie Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <200401192120.53057.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <51C2CB76-4AC7-11D8-90DA-0030657EA24A@apple.com> <200401192304.01694.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> From: Alexandre Oliva Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01430.txt.bz2 On Jan 19, 2004, Geoff Keating wrote: > On Jan 19, 2004, at 2:04 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> I would look at it this way: Why should a professional developer based >>> in the US try to make GCC work on anything less than this machine? >>> It's clearly not cost-effective to spend any significant time doing >>> so. >> >> My point of view is exactly reverse :-) Why should a developer not >> keep GCC >> working on such a machine? > Because it's a waste of the developer's time? Err... And under what kind of logic is getting the compiler slower not a waste of time for every GCC developer (that has to bootstrap and test the whole thing for every patch) and user (that runs GCC to build their own applications). Sure, one can get beefier hardware. But there's a limit to that, and making the compiler slower just because it still bootstraps in under 2 hours on a reasonable machine for US standards can make a project that used to build overnight to no longer complete the build when people get back to work on the next day. Sure, you can then start throwing other tricks into the problem, like ccache and distcc in compiler farms, but this means additional costs. So we're actually imposing a tax on everybody who wants to use the newer compiler by not caring about its performance. 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. -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Happy GNU Year! oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer