On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 04:40:29PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote: > >> Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed > >> >earlier. But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we > >> >can conclude that by far the majority if GCC users are quite happy > >> >with the cost assesments that were made. > >> > > >> No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing lists > >> have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many users will not > >> post to them, > > > > I've never in my life heard this from another mailing list, and i > > contribute to a *great* many open source projects. > > I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only > affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case of > 'gcc takes forever to compile this program' does appear on a regular > basis.
Maybe there are less/no complaints about bootstrap times, because people that are able to make a bootstrap know that complaining doesn't help. My primary target is m68k and I never attempted a bootstrap of GCC3 there because it would take much to much time. Now I got used to cross-build GCC (only C and C++) for m68k-amigaos. And since this target isn't in the official tree its even more painful to inquire the list. > I do also think that the amount of ridicule heaped on people who come > to the gcc lists is, in general, too high. People should not be > ridiculed for complaining that the compiler is slow, even if they are > insisting on using vintage hardware. IMHO GCC3 is better than GCC2 and thus its worthwile to use it even on "vintage" hardware. > It is slow, even on fast hardware; it's just easier to see that on > slow hardware. I mainly use C and thats acceptable with GCC3 but eg. C++ with templates is really slow on my m68k Amiga. > Rather more importantly, people should not be ridiculed for submitting > bug reports, even if they are wrong. I suspect the bad public image > that Stan refers to, has more to do with this than anything else. FWIW, I fully agree. Gunther
