This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?


On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:10 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> I have seen such complaints.  Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
> >> affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case of
> >> 'gcc takes forever to compile this program' does appear on a regular
> >> basis.
> >
> > People would complain even if the compiler took 1 second on every file,
> > regardless of size or optimization level.
> 
> Well, yes.  1 second/file is still slow!  I want "make" to complete
> instantaneously!  Don't you?
> 
> > If you want a faster compiler, it's hard work.  It means not adding
> > features because the design isn't a good one, *even if the user
> > would still find it useful*. People aren't willing to do this.  It
> > means lots and lots of profiling, and taking care of little
> > inefficiencies.  All I ever see people suggest is magic bullets.
> >
> > We also have some deep datastructure problems in terms of IL, but
> > those aren't going to give us a 5000% speedup or be a magic bullet
> > either.
> 
> What you say is true.  Does that mean we shouldn't try?

Let me point out the important part again:
All I ever see people suggest is magic bullets.

We should try, but by doing the hard work.
Not by expecting magic.

> 
> zw


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