Steven Bosscher wrote: > Let's be fair here: A 3% hit is small compared to the cumulative > slowdown we already have in GCC 4.3 since the start of stage 1, and > negligible compared to the total slowdown we've accumulated over the > years. I know this is not really an argument, but let's face it: Much > larger patches and branch merges have unintentionally increased > compile time by more than 3%, and we didn't have a large discussion > about it.
Yes, that's true. Here, however, we have two paths in front of us: 9-bit tree codes, or some language-dependent subcodes. The benefit of 9-bit tree codes is that they're easy to understand; the benefit of subcodes is that they might be faster, but, then again, they might use more memory. I'd be interested in understanding the tradeoff. > Subcodes require a bigger 'tree' data structure so there will be a > memory usage hit, I don't think there's disagreement about that. I thought the plan was to this in TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC, etc., so that it's not a generic effect on all trees? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
