Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 01:55:25 -0500
From: Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Even more problems with lcc-win
References: <ob2s0r$nl7$1@dont-email.me> <NDYCA.678492$vF2.570445@fx46.am4> <obhoon$df2$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> <IV5DA.211948$PU6.150214@fx13.am4> <obiti6$qpf$1@dont-email.me> <2R7DA.679006$vF2.481444@fx46.am4> <obj474$iml$1@dont-email.me> <pKLDA.487479$fZ.6744@fx41.am4> <obt39n$3jh$1@dont-email.me> <EYpEA.378079$8b6.367433@fx19.am4> <obtf76$c86$1@dont-email.me> <XgsEA.818972$vF2.762591@fx46.am4> <obtn52$96d$1@dont-email.me> <UEOFA.404344$8b6.9529@fx19.am4> <oc8k2f$gbd$1@dont-email.me> <WaRFA.672089$3a3.612012@fx43.am4> <ocah6n$ims$1@dont-email.me> <JL4GA.594227$0k4.381564@fx37.am4> <ocarr3$k2t$1@dont-email.me> <XBcGA.594385$0k4.115523@fx37.am4> <ektij5F7g4pU1@mid.individual.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2017 07:55:24 +0100
Message-ID: <8737dioysj.fsf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gSHUWaIyF02Y/0uWlC8rGyPBjsE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lines: 20
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XXDN8LJDJHQyNCmih/0SQe6DaLku3LnrhLeaHH+dOz211M1QDI0G2SCVwqi1pzUsHghstw8wTTrUm+v!D2pj7AAPLaiVDGE4+64qZQwkvja7mNC+uwBGmBGAzH/jC1NZrceTpP1IUoZgNKMFCyvt9mk=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2436
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:107919

Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 04/ 9/17 09:28 AM, bartc wrote:
>> On 08/04/2017 15:27, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/04/17 14:33, bartc wrote:
>>
>>> You think that, because first you don't understand the sort of
>>> optimisations that can be done at link-time (without considering
>>> link-time code generation), and secondly, you don't understand about
>>> scaling.
>>
>> May I remind you of that 1Mloc test a month or two back?
>
> One big file isn't scaling, many smaller files being worked on by many
> developers is.

The problem there wasn't even one big file.  It was one big function.
One big file was absolutely fine.  But bartc is a proven idiot -
multiple times over - and honestly I have no idea why so many non-idiots
are still arguing with him.  He's 'fir' with better grammar.