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 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 04:40:29PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
> >> >earlier.  But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we
> >> >can conclude that by far the majority if GCC users are quite happy
> >> >with the cost assesments that were made.
> >> >
> >> No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing lists
> >> have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many users will not
> >> post to them,
> >
> > I've never in my life heard this from another mailing list, and i
> > contribute to a *great* many open source projects.
> 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.

  Maybe there are less/no complaints about bootstrap times, because people
  that are able to make a bootstrap know that complaining doesn't help. My
  primary target is m68k and I never attempted a bootstrap of GCC3 there
  because it would take much to much time. Now I got used to cross-build
  GCC (only C and C++) for m68k-amigaos. And since this target isn't in
  the official tree its even more painful to inquire the list.

> I do also think that the amount of ridicule heaped on people who come
> to the gcc lists is, in general, too high.  People should not be
> ridiculed for complaining that the compiler is slow, even if they are
> insisting on using vintage hardware.

  IMHO GCC3 is better than GCC2 and thus its worthwile to use it even
  on "vintage" hardware.

> It is slow, even on fast hardware; it's just easier to see that on
> slow hardware.

  I mainly use C and thats acceptable with GCC3 but eg. C++ with templates
  is really slow on my m68k Amiga.

> Rather more importantly, people should not be ridiculed for submitting
> bug reports, even if they are wrong.  I suspect the bad public image
> that Stan refers to, has more to do with this than anything else.

  FWIW, I fully agree.


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