Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>]

On Monday 16 May 2005 18:15, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 17:03, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > if only it were that simple[1].  However, even if the money does get
> > > spent it's unlikely to help because there are too many developers that
> > > just DON'T CARE about (or worse, seem to be openly hostile to) making
> > > the compiler more efficient.
> >
> > They don't care because nobody pays them to care (IE you've got it
> > backwards), and they have other higher priority spare time projects that
> > they like to work on.
>
> It shouldn't be necessary to pay every developer to care.  We need to
> buy into the fact that if some of the developer community cares enough
> to pay for the work to be done, then doing things that undo that work
> are going to be unpopular.  That is, we should treat increases in memory
> usage/slow-downs in the compiler as regressions in the same way as we
> treat worse code as regressions.  That's the only way we'll ever get
> serious about this.  Unless and until we can accept this then nobody is
> going to put money into it, because it'll just be wasted money.

Just for the record, attached is gcctest's history of the overall
memory requirement at -O[0123] for combine.i, insn-attrtab.i, and
generate.ii (aka PR8361).  Honza's bot has been sending these
reports since Septemper 2004, so that's where I started.

It's not perfectly accurate, but it gives some indication of how
much worse we have made GCC since September last year wrt. memory
consumption.  Actually, the graph shows that things have improved
a lot since then.  Especially in the last two months.  I don't have
numbers from GCC3 based compilers to compare with.

Gr.
Steven

Attachment: out.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document