Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Doug Gregor wrote: | | >> > It's going to have a big performance impact. To extract a 9-bit value, | >> > the compiler will need to do a lot of masking every time it accesses | >> > the TREE_CODE. | >> | > So, about 16% slower with --enable-checking, 5% slower with | > --disable-checking. | > | > Subcodes might still be the way to go, but I'm feeling less bad about | > the 9-bit tree code option. | | As an interested outsider: GCC's compile-time speed has been | gradually decreasing for a while now. It seems to be acknowledged as | an undesirable thing, but not much has happened to change it. AIUI, | this is largely because it's very difficult. Nonetheless, seeing a 5% | slow-down caused by fixing a data structure design bogon is | disappointing.
yeah, the trouble is that we don't seem to agree on what is good for long-term, or if and when we agree whether we would find and allocate resources to implement the solution. So, we end up accumulating small% regressions over small% regressions. Then we get busy with short-term fixes, because that is what gets the releases out the door. Until the next trouble. -- Gaby
