tooling quality and some random rant (PathScale)

[./C]

> Mon, 14 Feb 2011 13:00:00 -0800, Walter Bright wrote:
> 
> 
> How about [2]:
> 
> "LTO is quite promising.  Actually it is in line or even better with
> improvement got from other compilers (pathscale is the most convenient
> compiler to check lto separately: lto gave there upto 5% improvement
> on SPECFP2000 and 3.5% for SPECInt2000 making compiler about 50%
> slower and generated code size upto 30% bigger).  LTO in GCC actually
> results in significant code reduction which is quite different from
> pathscale.  That is one of rare cases on my mind when a specific
> optimization works actually better in gcc than in other optimizing
> compilers."
> 
> [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-10/msg00155.html

PathScale is in the process of making significant improvements to our IPA optimization and welcome feedback and more testers in March.  Please email me directly if you're a current customer or not.

Thanks!

Christopher