Re: Compilation time (was Re: GCC 3.3)

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com> writes:

[...]

| I agree that compilation time regressions shouldn't be a reason to
| delay 3.3.  That's why I've changed the subject line: I don't think
| this discussion is really relevant to the 3.3 release.  (Although we
| might want to consider applying the patch Gaby posted a couple days
| ago, considering that his work is already done.)

I have considered ways in which I could do more (and still acceptable)
progressions on that topic for 3.3 -- that partly explains why it
took me so loong to return to you -- but most of the alterntives I
explored turned out to be invasive :-(

That, im my opinion, hilights a major problem about GCC: lack
modularity and abstractions.  Anyway, I've noted that people like Zack
are putting more modularity and abstractions in the compiler (and
removing junks) and I think their works should be thanked and
encouraged. 

I believe that there are many opportunities to improve the name lookup
machinerry with the effect of improving compile time.  Template
instantiations in cc1plus is also a good candidate.

| I also agree we should make compilation time a major goal for 3.4.

This also implies that we have a re-worked release process.

| One implication: if this is a major goal, then it's too important to
| be left just to the people who care about compilation time.

100% agreed.

-- Gaby