This is the mail archive of the 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 3.5 integration branch proposal

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Mark Hahn wrote:

> IMO, GCC should ignore compiler performance unless regressions are >= 2x.

E.g. so 1.5 slower GCC 3.4 in comparison with GCC 3.3 is ok, and then 1.5
slower GCC 3.5 in comparison with GCC 3.4 is again ok, etc, etc? Do you
mean this?

> 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.

As a GCC user I'm insterested in as fast as possible C++ compiler. Guys,
this is a real pain to see how Comeau and/or Intel compiles faster than
GCC 3.3.x :-( (I'm sorry for this complain). And in addition I guess these
two are not the fastest C++ compilers in the industry... I was really
surprised seeing M$ VC 7.1 compiling much faster with all optimization
switch on than GCC at -O0 and even the code produced runs a bit faster
than those compiled by GCC with -O2...

> 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.

I guess you have forgotten that compiler is also needed for software


Karel Gardas        
ObjectSecurity Ltd. 

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