This is the mail archive of the 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 compile-time performance

> What counts on the Space Shuttle (I never mentioned "station") is code
> accuracy, actually. I was using it as an example to counter your belief that
> the only folk who use "old" computers are hobbiests. And you ignored the
> other examples I gave from industry and education.

Actually code performance is important too. Oddly enough, code accuracy is
probably not absolutely critical. Why not, because in a safety-critical
environment (say something that is certified at FCC level A), you have to
look at the object code anyway (you can't trust the compiler, or even the
linker). Furthermore, you tend to use a VERY simple subset of the language
where it is relatively unlikely that the compiler gets things wrong, and
you tend to work with low optimization levels since you want source

One problem with GCC in the SC world is the very poor quality of unoptimized
code. We generally attempt to get people to use at least -O1, since in 
practice we find this helps traceability, but this is a segment that is
very optimization adverse (they wanted a requirement in the Ada RM that
any compiler which was annex H compliant must have a mode where absolutely
no optimization was performed at all -- this got rejected since it is 
semantic nonsense -- but it shows the level of concern).

In any case, the point I was making was that this is a discussion about
compile time performance (see subject line), and the use of slow target
processors in embedded environments is, I still maintain, irrelevant
to that particular discussion.

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