Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

[Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> writes:

 Robert> Paul Koning wrote:
 >> It wouldn't satisfy me.  C++ is just as important as C, and it is
 >> completely unreasonable to tell people that any host other than a
 >> year or two is "marginal".
 >> 
 >> A point to keep in mind is that laptops make good hosts, but
 >> laptops are more memory-limited than desktops.

 Robert> Not really true these days. Most laptops have supported a
 Robert> gigabyte for years, and most laptops of today support two
 Robert> gigabytes.

 Robert> But that should be far beyond what is reasonably needed
 Robert> anyway. I think what would be most helpful is to try to agree
 Robert> very specifically on what is reasonable.

Good.  My view on laptops is different from yours, but by adopting the
principle you suggest we don't have to sort out that difference.

 Robert> For example, we might say:

 Robert> All typical existing C++ code should be able to be compiled
 Robert> on a 256 meg PC running GNU/Linux without significant
 Robert> thrashing.

 Robert> That seems a reasonable expectation. Then we consider any
 Robert> violation of this as a bug, to be fixed like any other bug.

Another thing we'd want to be able to talk about is the minimum config
that will bootstrap gcc without a lot of thrashing.  For a while, that
config was dramatically larger than 256 (since it thrashed badly on my
384 meg laptop).

    paul