This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: type consistency of gimple
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Novillo, Diego" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, "Hubicha, Jan" <jh at suse dot cz>, "Edelsohn, David" <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:52:13 -0700
- Subject: Re: type consistency of gimple
- References: <44DCEAAA.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <44DCEDF1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <44DCF0A0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44DF6702.email@example.com> <44E074F4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <44E094AA.email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
How true :) Nevertheless the goals for the FSF GCC should IMHO be
purely based on rather technical arguments and considerations, not
the drive by paying customers.
:-) I'd of course argue that a compiler with no customers (I'd use
the term users, however) is a pointless exercise and tends to have no
developers. I think there is a balance to be had here. I can
understand Mark's desire to decouple the two bits of work and get one
done. This results in a shorter schedule and allows for merging in
work sooner. I think that would go a long way to ensuring that we
get any progress in this area. In the end, I'm interested in PCH
file growth when LTO isn't used and compile time increases at -O0 and
weighing any regressions in that area against the benefit of LTO. It
would be great if there were none, but accepting some might be ok.
I'd baulk at a 40% time regression however. I don't see the need to
argue against the patch without seeing the numbers.