C compile time

[Dara Hazeghi]

> But for the vast majority of working programmers, I
> simply don't see why 
> optimized compile times are such an issue.

You have a point. My point is that gcc has tried best
to be amenable to all types of users, be they the
typical working programmer, or the kernel hacker, or
the hobbyist.

One group for instance, is people who develop gcc.
Since for them, compiles are done with -O2 -g, I'd
certainly imagine this can become an issue (though if
I'm wrong, feel free to chime in!).

Another group is distributions targeting older
machines, ie OpenBSD/m68k. As Marc Espie pointed out
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg01460.html) this
is more than a minor inconvenience.

Then of course, there're the people who like to
compile their software (I guess I fit there). Most
free software packages default to -O2, or -O3. Trust
me, switching from gcc 2.95 to 3.1 on Darwin, and
trying to rebuild the 5 dozen fink packages I use was
not fun. Took 4 days instead of 2.5.

And of course, there was the little thread a few
months back about how linux kernel developers were
less than pleased with the state of compile time in
gcc 3.2.

So the short answer is of course, it only matters to
some folk. But I think that raising the issue at a
minimum raises awareness.

Dara

P.S. I personally would like a -O.5 option. Something
which generates decent code (not too much slower than
-O1), but doesn't constantly receive new
optimizations, and so as a result, slows down only
with the underlying infrastructure.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com