------- Comment #13 from sergstesh at yahoo dot com 2006-11-17 02:23 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my > say isn't worth much, but here's my take: > > You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code through which > we will have to dig ourselves to find out what is causing the slowdown, and > then fix the problem. At the same time you sit at the sidelines and wait for > us to work on the code that you have purposefully made hard to read. > > What you apparently don't understand is that many of us work on gcc in our > spare time. If you want us to do something for you, you will have to help us > some. That might include trying to find out which part of the code slowed > down, or to make the code significantly slower. Typically, the bug reports > that come with the smallest testcases receive the most attention. > > You just have to realize that you don't pay us to do the crappy work of > taking apart an obfuscated code. Since nobody pays us to work on random > bug reports, we typically pick the ones that are the most interesting or > that are the easiest to tackle since they come with a short testcase. We > do have an interest in making gcc better, but we reserve the right to > decide which parts of the compiler to make better, unless you pay someone > to do some specific piece of work. > > > > I am simply saying I do not want to spend my time changing the code to be > > able > > to publish it if you are not going to deal with the performance issue > > anyway. > > We may. You can increase your chances by helping us. > > W. >
I opened another bug report, and mentioned it above, specifically devoted to the performance issue: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29874 . The example is based on FFTW, which is GPL - not a line of my code. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29818
