This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 3.3, GCC 3.4


Benjamin Kosnik wrote:-

> 3) Any kind of attempt at compile-time regressions or compile time
> performance at all. Dropping the release criteria, or ignoring the
> release criteria that deals with compile time performance is unacceptable.
> Sane defaults in the garbage collector would be a big win here.

As I pointed out elsewhere, changing a GC default is simply papering
over the problem; we're not really getting any faster.

But it's worse than that - if someone later comes along with
improvements that improve our algorithms and data structures (those are
where the real problems lie), the new GC default is going to reduce or
eliminate the impact of that improvement, an impact that would have been
noticeable had the GC defaults not been changed, and the improvement
is less likely to happen.

I'm starting to feel quite pessimistic about these things ever genuinely
improving.  I think it's fair to say that in all the slowdown since
2.95 we've never really identified anything that is causing it (apart
from GC itself, but that doesn't apply for regressions from 3.0).

Neil.


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