--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:42:01 -0400 > > > I agree with you 100%. It has always been my view > that if you can't > > compile fast enough, then get another machine and > use distcc, or get a > > quad core and do make -j5, etc etc. > > I have 64 cpu machines and use make -j64, it's still > not fast enough > and I know it could be much faster. > > Note that a faster GCC would also make GCC > development go > significantly quicker, since every developer has to > do a full > bootstrap and regression run before checking in > non-trivial changes. > > The world is not black and white, it is shades of > gray. Compilation > time matters to some people, and I'm not in the > slightest suggesting > that it should trump code correctness. I don't know > where anyone got > that idea from what I've been saying. >
I don't think anyone got that idea about your position, but I have repeatedly seen posts about the performance of tools, some emphasizing that the speed of a compile is the top priority. I just can't find, right now, the post that was most emphatic about the speed of compilation taking priority over all else. Maybe it is noise from other threads, possibly in other lists I read, and then I see the post from the OP about compiles that run to completion in mere minutes. Maybe that was the trigger that compelled me to write about correctness trumping all else, and other options for being productive when complete builds take a while. And I agreed with you that much in the weighting of priorities is situation dependant. On a different note, I wish I had your budget for hardware. :-) With the kind of work I find most interesting, one can never have too much hardware to throw at a problem, and you all too easily start hitting your head on the limits of of whatever hardware you do have. I know people that set up computing clusters, with outrageously expensive machines (relative to my budget) along with terabyte data storage solutions, and still their environmental models take weeks to finish. And then the programs required to analyze the data produced are even more demanding. There simply are problems I, and my peers, would like to tackle but the computational resources available are simply too constrainted to make an attempt with the most defensible models without greatly simplifying the models to be used. Is such a situation, the time taken by the development tools is nothing. But I can see others who answer to bean counters who would place more priority on the speed of the development tools and the impact that has on programmer productivity. I apologize if what I wrote created an incorrect impression of what you had to say. That was not what intended. Ted
