This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- From: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: Scott Robert Ladd <scott dot ladd at coyotegulch dot com>
- Cc: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>, Peter Barada <peter at the-baradas dot com>, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM, hjl at lucon dot org, aph at redhat dot com, aoliva at redhat dot com, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, schwab at suse dot de, pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu, pkoning at equallogic dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, matt at 3am-software dot com, cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 17:17:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <1116249726.13457.49.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <4288B3FA.40706@coyotegulch.com>
On Monday 16 May 2005 16:53, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> The problem is, a bloated GCC has no consequences for the majority of
> GCC developers -- their employers have other (and valid) concerns. It's
> less a matter of laziness than it is of not caring outside one's own
> backyard.
And to second your point in an awkward way: I don't see this as a
problem. If all those people who think this is a problem would
also fund GCC development (with hard cash or with developers), who
knows, probably things would look different.
But AFAICT even the developers who work on embedded targets focus
on code quality and new features, instead of on the compile time
and memory footprint issues that you would expect their group of
users to complain about.
Gr.
Steven