Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia

"Daniel C. Wang" <danwang74@gmail.com>
3 Jul 2005 09:40:50 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Compiler Companies in Australia karendavis@campus.ie (Karen) (2005-05-20)
Re: Compiler Companies in Australia bear@sonic.net (Ray Dillinger) (2005-06-26)
Re: Compiler Companies in Australia walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2005-07-02)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia danwang74@gmail.com (Daniel C. Wang) (2005-07-03)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia emailamit@gmail.com (Amit Gupta) (2005-07-05)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia david.boyle@gmail.com (2005-07-05)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia walter@bytecraft.com (Walter Banks) (2005-07-05)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia der_julian@web.de (Julian Stecklina) (2005-07-11)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia alexc@TheWorld.com (Alex Colvin) (2005-07-12)
Re: GCC code quality, was Compiler Companies in Australia robert.hundt@gmail.com (Robert H) (2005-07-22)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Daniel C. Wang" <danwang74@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Jul 2005 09:40:50 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-05-187 05-06-132 05-07-008
Keywords: GCC, optimize

Walter Banks wrote:
{stuff deleted}
> In the coming years of multiprocessor, thread machines and diverse
> processor architectures not to mention many new data types supported
> by HLL's GCC is locked into its historical roots way behind the
> current commercial compilers that have no similar restrictions. The
> multi-million dollar effort to make GCC competitive even when
> distributed across its large base will be difficult.
{stuff deleted}


I'm not sure what legacy part of GCC you think is holding it back. Last
I checked GCC 4.0 contains a pretty significant revamp of the internal
optimization IRs.


To me it seems silly to invest in building a whole new compiler
infrastructure, just so you can throw in a few tweaks that you need for
your specific application. The added value to a customer is not in the
complier, but the development, simulation, and debugging environment
around it. In any case, I think code quality is becoming less of an
issue for the end customers. It makes sense then to "outsource" or reuse
the work done by the GCC team rather than rolling your own.


Also, last I checked the amount of hardware diveristy in the world is
going down. I suspect the following list covers more than 95% of all
shiping processors and micro-controllers. ARM, x86, PowerPC, MIPS, PIC,
and AVR.



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.