This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>, Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>, Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr dot net>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Marc Espie <espie at quatramaran dot ens dot fr>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:04:20 -0800
- Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 06:43 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I know Apple has put a lot of effort on speeding up the compiler, and
I can only find it sad that such efforts are fundamentally
incompatible with the relatively-scalable approach to speeding builds
up, namely, the use of compiler farms with distcc, Mosix or similar
? Call me confused. Give me a Mosix cluster and the compile server,
and I'll show you fast compilation... What parts of it do you think
are incompatible? We do distcc and PCH today, perfectly compatible as
well. We don't do ccache and PCH, but I don't see why that is any
harder than simple to get working.
I'm wanna try my hand at ccache built into the compile server on a 64
bit machine and see how well it works in practice... :-) Certainly I
see 100x+ speedups now with it with small testcases.
PCH and the compile server are playing together nicer than I'd imagine.
Anyone have a Mosix cluster they want to donate some time on? :-)
Are you by chance referring to the fact that we don't do fine gained db
in the compiler's data structures and share those across compile
servers? If so, I'm yet to be convinced that that would be wise to do.
Maybe. If it is, it isn't fundamentally incompatible, in fact, it is
a possibly planned development line, it just won't be in the first
version checked into mainline.