Re: GCC 3.3 compile speed regression - AN ANSWER

[Michael S. Zick <mszick at goquest dot com>]

On Monday 10 February 2003 03:23 pm, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > The thread on linux-kernel was also quite clear.  Some people even
> > discussing a fork.
>
> Actually a fork which concentrated on compile speed issues is not
> necessarily a bad idea, since it can be an experimentation ground for
> trying out ideas. Just to be clear, I quite realize that there are
> plenty of people who would like gcc to be faster (as we know from this
> list for example, there are people with very slow machines who find
> the speed particularly painful). My point was that it would appear that
> the commercial companies willing to put $$$ into gcc are not putting
> $$$ into this particular aspect (again I cited Apple as an exception).
> Perhaps that's wrong, but it sure seems like at least partially a
> resource issue to me.
>
Robert and Group;

I read your reference to: $$$ as a suggestion of re-introducing the
concept of "direct remuneration for effort" into the solution.

I agree, that would work.  Indeed it does work within organizations
where "direct remuneration for effort" is part of the organizational
dynamic.

BUT, I do think a solution to this particular problem can be arrived
at without re-introducing the concept of "direct remuneration for
effort" into this "Open Source Software supported by Volunteers"
organizational dynamic.

My suggestions have been along the same lines as your own
comment quoted above.

Step 1) Get the importance of this work recognized/acknowledged
by establishing a branch whose objective is concentration on
compile speed issues.

Step 2...) "Under construction".

Mike

Neil - Was I clear that time?