This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Movable initializer lists (C++ N4166)
- From: David Krauss <potswa at gmail dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 00:00:24 +0800
- Subject: Re: Movable initializer lists (C++ N4166)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <90D1D156-6E56-41D2-9B84-CAA6B65174F7 at gmail dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 11 dot 1505031722090 dot 1611 at laptop-mg dot saclay dot inria dot fr>
> On 2015â05â03, at 11:27 PM, Marc Glisse <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 May 2015, David Krauss wrote:
>> (Yes, I know that a âcompile farmâ exists. It appears to be obsolete; perhaps someone could vouch for it?)
> What gave you that impression? It doesn't have a lot of variety, but it has perfectly usable x86(_64) systems, and some very impressive POWER ones.
Itâs hard to judge by looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm because newer and older machines are mixed together in the list, and some of the ones which are still powerful enough (gcc75, gcc76) are nevertheless a few years old. Maybe servers circa 2010 are still faster than my newish, 4x2-core laptop at building GCC, I canât really estimate.
Checking the list now, itâs less confusing than it was when I last looked in February, which could also be characterized as a decrease in variety. However, this raises the question of machines being taken offline.
Besides that, are some machines overloaded? If I need to use POWER, will there be a learning curve or brittleness as on Darwin? To avoid trial and error whilst wading into the process, Iâm just asking for some personal confirmation of suitability for my particular needs: same-day turnaround for clean rebuilds + testsuite validation. Too many days of my life have gone into setting up GCC builds (and then setting up again elsewhere when a problem comes up).