> Exactly. I'm viewing the mission statement as the moral equivalent of a > constitution -- the highest guidelines that you fall back on when > everything else fails. Your first paragraph above indicates that you view > it similarly. But it's currently so vague that I don't imagine it's much > use... it's like a legal constitution that says "be nice to everybody".
The problem is that I don't think writing a detailed "mission statement" is actually going to help anything. It's either going to be gcc contributors writing down what they're doing anyway, or something invented by the SC or FSF. I the latter case nothing's going to change because neither the SC nor the FSF have any practical means of compelling contributors to work on a particular feature. It's been said before that Mark (the GCC release manager) has no real power to make anything actually happen. All he can do is delay the release and hope things get better. > Maybe I'm wrong, but to return to the original topic, I don't expect > to see compile-time performance improve significantly in any future > release. I'm not aware of anyone putting serious effort into improving compile-time performance, so you may well be right. Paul
