2 ms·
rustc could definitely be faster. I'm simply pushing back on the idea that there's some obvious low-hanging fruit that clang did that rustc didn't. Compiler pe
by pcwalton 9y ago
rustc could definitely be faster.
I'm simply pushing back on the idea that there's some obvious low-hanging fruit that clang did that rustc didn't. Compiler performance has more or less much been the #1 goal for well over a year now. The Rust compiler team (which hasn't included me for years, by the way) is fantastic. We'd all like for there to be some magic bullet that makes the compiler faster, but at this point I don't believe it exists. It's hard work from here on out.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- civility 9y ago> I'm simply pushing back on the idea that there's some obvious low-hanging fruit that clang did that rustc didn't. [...] magic bullet I didn't suggest low hanging fruit or a magic bullet. If anything, incremental compilation is being promoted as that kind of thing, and I just wanted call it into question.
- pcwalton 9y agoNobody thinks incremental compilation is a magic bullet! The article specifically says "This is still not the end story for compiler performance generally, nor incremental compilation specifically."