This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Dan Nicolaescu <dann at ics dot uci dot edu>, pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, echristo at redhat dot com, hubicka at ucw dot cz, jbuck at synopsys dot com, dnovillo at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, pcarlini at unitus dot it, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 14:14:59 -0800
- Subject: Re: compile time regressions (was: merging for 3.4)
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 12:33 PM, Neil Booth wrote:
That's what scares me about PCH - I'm afraid it'll be used as an excuse
not to fix some of the real problems we have, because "we're fast
enough
now". I'd rather wait until we have good performance without PCH
before
allowing PCH, though I realize that's not gonna fly.
No, no, you have it backwards... PCH is going to expose all that slow
code that should be fast, that has to be fast, so that we can fix it.
By being 12x faster, or just 2x faster, there is _much_ less room to be
slow, not more, really.