From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <229aaef51090aa24504f7f55d106b8c2@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:11:25 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc
In-Reply-To: <db4fe6109b8ad4110c468482963d603c@proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 34110798-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't think that's it.

i think the gcc folks have different goals.  they seem very interested in
lots of very sophisticated optimizations and support for every odd corner case.
(of course odd corner cases are exponential in sophisticated optimizations.)

i think their lack of success is indicitive that the problem they're solving is hard,
and they don't quite understand why it is so hard.

- erik

p.s. linux is doing the same thing. they've added 22 (by my count) system
calls this year alone.  all are performace hacks or corner-case jobs.

On Sun Apr  9 23:24:33 CDT 2006, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > Gcc does all these kinds of optimizations and more.  I can't imagine
> > what they're optimizing for.
> >
> >     gcc-developer time?  many hours went into writing that code.
>
> On the contrary, they are protecting their "job" just like any other
> employee, by making themselves indispensable.  I don't think it's
> necessary or a conscious decision on their part, but it's that aspect
> of human nature that eventually defeats any attempt at benevolent
> social engineering.  Call it "the tragedy of the commons", if you need
> a label.
>
> ++L
>