------- Comment #11 from bangerth at dealii dot org 2006-11-17 02:09 -------
I'm only a bug master and don't do any work on the compiler anyway, so my say isn't worth much, but here's my take: You propose that you can give us 15,000 lines of obfuscated code through which we will have to dig ourselves to find out what is causing the slowdown, and then fix the problem. At the same time you sit at the sidelines and wait for us to work on the code that you have purposefully made hard to read. What you apparently don't understand is that many of us work on gcc in our spare time. If you want us to do something for you, you will have to help us some. That might include trying to find out which part of the code slowed down, or to make the code significantly slower. Typically, the bug reports that come with the smallest testcases receive the most attention. You just have to realize that you don't pay us to do the crappy work of taking apart an obfuscated code. Since nobody pays us to work on random bug reports, we typically pick the ones that are the most interesting or that are the easiest to tackle since they come with a short testcase. We do have an interest in making gcc better, but we reserve the right to decide which parts of the compiler to make better, unless you pay someone to do some specific piece of work. > I am simply saying I do not want to spend my time changing the code to be able > to publish it if you are not going to deal with the performance issue anyway. We may. You can increase your chances by helping us. W. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29818
