Re: [avr-gcc-list] Gcc branches small comparison.

[Bruce D. Lightner]

Curtis Maloney wrote:

> > Maybe things like "Moore's Law" are setting unrealistic expectations 
> > for those of us in this business.  Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics 
> > affecting "gcc" development?  Is ever increasing entropy is somehow 
> > negatively affecting "gcc" source code tree! :-)
>
> I don't see what a law about the rate of increase in cost effective 
> transistor densities has to do with this... although, perhaps it's all 
> the result of some emergent complexity? ;)

It's not Moore's Law in particular, but the combined affect of many, many 
factors driving the "computer business" that has continuously given us 
"more and better for less" every single year, for half a century.  Every 
year Intel's Gordon Moore gets up in front of one audience or another and 
states that the observed exponential improvement in silicon density named 
after him can't go on much longer.  He's been wrong for a long, long time. 
 Nevertheless, the seemingly "free ride" has got to come to an end 
sometime! :-)

> Chin up - from what I've been reading on the gcc mailing list, there's 
> good news on the way.
>
> (And yes, I've been somewhat non-plussed by some of the code GCC is 
> generating, ESPECIALLY with respect to longs).

Thanks for the feedback...

I will remain "hopeful".  In particular, let's all hope that "gcc" will 
not collapse under the load of it's ever increasing complexity.  The 
number of targets that it now supports is truly amazing.

Best regards,

Bruce

--
 Bruce D. Lightner
 Lightner Engineering
 La Jolla, California
 Voice: +1-858-551-4011
 FAX: +1-858-551-0777
 Email: address@hidden
 URL: http://www.lightner.net/lightner/bruce/