Quoting Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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.
Does C++ front end really need to use tree codes for most of its
data structures?
Assuming we have a volunteer and resources to work on having the C++ front-end
stop using tree codes for most of its data structures, do you have an estimate
how much of tree code pressure will we left?
-- Gaby
