On Aug 14, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
How true :) Nevertheless the goals for the FSF GCC should IMHO be purely based on rather technical arguments and considerations, not the drive by paying customers.
:-) I'd of course argue that a compiler with no customers (I'd use the term users, however) is a pointless exercise and tends to have no developers. I think there is a balance to be had here. I can understand Mark's desire to decouple the two bits of work and get one done. This results in a shorter schedule and allows for merging in work sooner. I think that would go a long way to ensuring that we get any progress in this area. In the end, I'm interested in PCH file growth when LTO isn't used and compile time increases at -O0 and weighing any regressions in that area against the benefit of LTO. It would be great if there were none, but accepting some might be ok. I'd baulk at a 40% time regression however. I don't see the need to argue against the patch without seeing the numbers.
