Re: Suggestion for improving C++ parser memory usage

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > It appeared obvious to me that, if Roger was going to send actual
| > patch, he would also provide data points.  So at this point of
| > pre-patch, my understanding is that you're merely emitting negative
| > feedbacks than actually helping.
| > Did you follow gcc-patches, you would have noticed that bunch of
| > patches are being applied to GCC (and the C++ front-end in particular)
| > in the name of < 1% improvement.
| 
| Indeed, implementing dubious optimizations that decrease stability
| without suffiecient demonstrated value is a common hazard of enthusiastic
| compiler writers! It's not the 1% above that is worrisome, it is
| the less-than sign :-)

Did you actually read the initial message of Roger?  
How long have you been following gcc-patches, especially patches that
are supposed to add improvements?  Have you noticed that they come
with indications of the actual gain?  Which of them do you find
"insufficient" and "sufficient"?  Those are genuine questions, ypur
answers will help better undrstand your views. 

[...]

| And please don't think I am not in favor of fast compilers (have
| a look at Realia COBOL some time :-)

I'm not talking of fast compilers in general.  I'm talking about the
specific C++ front-end in GCC.  As the subject of this thread suggests.
If you have no interest, that is fine;  but then please refrain from
trollesque sub-threads.

-- Gaby