Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal

[Mark Hahn <hahn at physics dot mcmaster dot ca>]

> I think we can both agree that all is in the balance between code quality 
> improvement and compilation speed degradation.

the problem is that this discussion is being dominated by the sqeaky wheel
phenomenon.  who's likley to complain about compiler speed?  people who 
somehow can't afford a beefy machine, and yet want to use gigantic UI
frameworks or breathtaking template tricks.

GCC still works VERY well for traditional Unix-style code, even on small
machines, even with sane use of C++.

the real problem is not that gcc sometimes compiles a little slower,
but that so very many people have abandoned GCC in favor of the better
performance, F90 support and OpenMP available in Intel's compilers.

IMO, GCC should ignore compiler performance unless regressions are >= 2x.
and when a tradeoff is necessary, 5% better code is worth 2x compile time.
obviously, I'm interested in code that is run more often than compiled.

but isn't that the whole point of a compiler?  maybe another factor is people
trying to use GCC where they should use a scripting language instead.

regards, mark hahn.