Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:32:51 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
Cc: acme@conectiva.com.br, cw@f00f.org, torvalds@transmeta.com,
       geert@linux-m68k.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, perex@suse.cz,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GCC speed (was [PATCH] Isapnp warning)
Message-Id: <20030622103251.158691c3.akpm@digeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <200306221522.29653.phillips@arcor.de>
References: <20030621125111.0bb3dc1c.akpm@digeo.com>
	<20030622014345.GD10801@conectiva.com.br>
	<20030621191705.3c1dbb16.akpm@digeo.com>
	<200306221522.29653.phillips@arcor.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1112
Lines: 25

Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> As for compilation speed, yes, that sucks.  I doubt there's any rational 
>  reason for it, but I also agree with the idea that correctness and binary 
>  code performance should come first, then the compilation speed issue should 
>  be addressed.

No.  Compilation inefficiency directly harms programmer efficiency and the
quality and volume of code the programmer produces.  These are surely the
most important things by which a toolchain's usefulness should be judged.

I compile with -O1 all the time and couldn't care the teeniest little bit
about the performance of the generated code - it just doesn't matter.

I'm happy allowing those thousands of people who do not compile kernels all
the time to shake out any 3.2/3.3 compilation problems.


Compilation inefficiency is the most serious thing wrong with gcc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/