From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: From: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-zmdtdilnmoyppjohynahygpazn" Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 09:19:44 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 584ba17e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-zmdtdilnmoyppjohynahygpazn Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bushnell is right. There's nothing wrong with having heavy duty optimizations. Just because you have to use them with caution doesn't mean they shouldn't be available. The problem of compiler complexity is a problem for those developing/maintaining it, not necessarily for those using it, modulo compile time and you can get some of that back by backing off the optimization level. If I had to support GCC I'ld go nuts but as long as someone else is willing to, why not? Luckily dhog doesn't have to worry as much about pulling his hair out. Having a license that encourages gobs of people to work on components of the system is nice. I wish we had such a license to find out if it is indeed the license that causes that and not some inherent attraction of the code or system. A pity that we're held hostage by a lawyer. Plan 9 held hostage - day 4232 --upas-zmdtdilnmoyppjohynahygpazn Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Wed Feb 27 05:38:23 EST 2002 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Wed Feb 27 05:38:22 EST 2002 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.18.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 3265F19AA0; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:38:19 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from mercury.bath.ac.uk (mercury.bath.ac.uk [138.38.32.81]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id A841519A9F for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:37:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from news by mercury.bath.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #1) id 16g1Cr-0001x2-00 for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:21:05 +0000 Received: from GATEWAY by bath.ac.uk with netnews for 9fans@cse.psu.edu (9fans@cse.psu.edu) To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87664jxrsw.fsf@becket.becket.net> Organization: University of California, Irvine Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <181b9e858518e43368953c1050365780@plan9.bell-labs.com>, <3C7C829F.D7A24A28@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Help: List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:20:36 GMT edorman@san.rr.com (Eric Dorman) writes: > IMHO the real deal is whether it's fast enough to do what you want > it to do. No doubt 8c would benefit if it had the same zillions > of both paid and unpaid hours gcc has, but that's not saying > anything earth-shattering; for this particular app it does reasonably > well, IMO, given the level of effort put into it. If somebody > wants 8c to go faster then they are welcome to turn the crank > to make it happen.... Sure, GCC has available way more person-hours to try and get every last bit of improvement out of the generated code, and 8c just doesn't have that much time available. I think Dan Cross is entirely right in suggesting that such speed improvements might not be worth the effort it would take to put them into 8c. But that's only an argument against adding gobs of hairy optimization to 8c; it's not an argument for why GCC is somehow *bad* for having such optimizations. Indeed, it's really an argument for why dropping 8c is the best thing to do! But then, 8c does really have a great advantage in speed-of-compilation. So both compilers are doing useful things. Incidentally, the reason GCC has gobs of people working on it is pretty darn simple. It's because GCC has a license which encourages gobs of people to work on it. Thomas --upas-zmdtdilnmoyppjohynahygpazn--