This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>,Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr dot net>,Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:04:58 +0100
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>

> 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?  I think it may have been partially shared by the 
SC, because there used to be a criterion for compilation time degradation 
between releases (15% IIRC).  Was it even checked once?

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
  - From: Geoff Keating

References:
- gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
  - From: Geoffrey Keating
- Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
  - From: Geoff Keating

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