This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Hahn <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I think we can both agree that all is in the balance between code
>> quality improvement and compilation speed degradation.
Mark> the problem is that this discussion is being dominated by the
Mark> sqeaky wheel phenomenon. who's likley to complain about
Mark> compiler speed? people who somehow can't afford a beefy
Mark> machine, and yet want to use gigantic UI frameworks or
Mark> breathtaking template tricks.
Mark> GCC still works VERY well for traditional Unix-style code, even
Mark> on small machines, even with sane use of C++.
I suppose that's probably still true. Our product is an embedded
system, about half C++, half C. It's all pretty straightforward code,
some templates but nothing wild, certainly nothing likw what you
It does takes quite a while (a couple of hours) to do a full build.
We can do partial builds to deal with that, at some risk in getting
things out of sync.
What concerns me is that I see a general attitude that people who have
machines more than a year or two old are obsolete and shouldn't
complain when things get slow. That attitude, if allowed to take
hold, will not hurt only those who do "breathtaking template tricks"
-- it may well affect anyone who builds any substantial size project
Something else to keep in mind: some people use PC hosts. Others use
other hosts -- Solaris boxes for example. It's easy for a US based PC
hacker to say "just spend a few hundred dollars on a new PC". That
approach will not go over well in shops that use a different host
type, where host upgrades may be substantially more expensive. Note
that switching hosts is only rarely an option.
I know that there are companies out there that build PC-only software,
whose minimal configuration requirements advance at least as rapidly
as the hardware state of the art. Some of them even dominate the PC
business. But it doesn't follow that the GCC project should follow