From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: presotto@closedmind.org
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011111163224.8E174199EE@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 11:32:22 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e3f5322-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

There is a trade off between the efficiency of the code and
the speed of the compiler.  Ken went for the latter with
some concessions to the former.  It made sense for us since
we spend most of our time writing code and are somewhat sensitive
to the speed of building.  It also makes it possible to build for
all architectures everytime without really worrying about the time
it takes.  Since we still regularly use multiple architectures,
'mk installall' is the thing I type most whenever I've changed
code.

I wouldn't put GCC at the other end of the spectrum; SUIF owns
that extremity.

However, this shouldn't be held up as a reason for not producing
compilers with better code generation.  There's plenty of room
in the Plan 9 world for a better/more feature rich compiler.
Perhaps dhog will massage GCC enough to make it fill that space.
More likely something else will come along.

The only thing I ask is that the code that comes out correctly
reflects the C that went in.  The rest, to a lesser or greater
extent, is just icing on the cake.