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: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <scott dot ladd at coyotegulch dot com>, 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 16:53:57 +0100
- 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> <200505161717.31407.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:17, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> 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.
if only it were that simple[1]. However, even if the money does get
spent it's unlikely to help because there are too many developers that
just DON'T CARE about (or worse, seem to be openly hostile to) making
the compiler more efficient.
No company is going to spend money on fixing this until we adjust our
(collective) attitude and take this seriously. If one person can
continue to undo the good work of a dozen others with one lousy commit
we'll never get anywhere here.
R.
[1] Spending money is never simple ;-)