This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: reduce compilation times?

On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <> wrote:
> >
> >> As I said in my first post on the subject, there is no "hard set"
> >> rule about when to refactor. If your class has 3 methods and
> >> is 75 lines of code, it's probably better to have it all organized
> >> in one unit/file. But if your class has 15 methods, and requires
> >> 1500 lines of code, you're probably better off refactoring it.
> >>
> >
> > Well, and how is this GCC in reality?
> >
> > svn://
> > $ svn info
> > ...
> > Revision: 130486
> >
> While I won't defend the GCC process (mostly because I'm not part of it)
> I will say that quite  a few files are machine generated.  i386.c for
> instance is generated from isn't it?

I've not idea if i386.c is generated from
i386.c say nothing that is generated from or by a generator.
I don't believe that i386.c is generated from because
i386.c has large comments that hasn't.

> Anyways, most OSS projects routinely violate most basic rules of proper
> software development.  About the only thing they get right is they at
> least use some form of revision and bug control.  Firefox is another
> beast.  OpenOffice is a much more annoying offender.

Repairing the development's violations is not an offense.
It's a good solution to try repair the violated rules of software development.

> Tom

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]