This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: reduce compilation times?
On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <email@example.com> wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > On 2007/11/28, Tom St Denis <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> > $ 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 i386.md isn't it?
I've not idea if i386.c is generated from i386.md.
i386.c say nothing that is generated from i386.md or by a generator.
I don't believe that i386.c is generated from i386.md because
i386.c has large comments that i386.md 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.