i propose to do this then, at least initially for the sake of port-vax, 
and i can contribute some time to help on this. i've not spent any time 
inthe gcc sources though, and have never tinkered heavily with 
configuring it. if some others are also inclined to work on this, and 
would give some direction to the effort, ill help with it
im sure the rest of us will enjoy getting e.g.  kernel compiles in less 
than a day on a uv2.. :) 

isildur

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:

> >   But is there any other way out of the GCC Bloat Syndrome?
> 
> sure there is.  look carefully at the collection of command line options
> that it takes to turn gcc into an ansi-only compiler with the few small
> gcc-isms that actually improve object code (like inline functions) and
> then make them into ./configure options for gcc itself.  this will take
> a few weeks of #ifdef'ing the various parts of gcc to avoid compiling
> all the extra bloat (nested function support comes to mind).  you'd get
> a gcc that was 2/3 the size, probably 3/4 the runtime, and no way to
> accidentally depend on some gcc-ism that would make your code unportable.
> 
> this would be a very popular move, not just in the *bsd community but for
> the entire gcc community.  and it would be less work than reviving pcc or
> writing something new.
>