This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Patch: RAM-based heuristics for ggc-min-heapsize and ggc-min-expand
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, mstump at apple dot com
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:01:17 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch: RAM-based heuristics for ggc-min-heapsize and ggc-min-expand
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com> writes:
> > > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > It doesn't make sense for us to try to consider RLIMIT_DATA etc, since
> > > we don't have enough control to guarantee that we don't go over those.
> > >
> > RLIMIT_DATA would be completely wrong anyway. That's the maximum virtual
> > data size (including swapped out data). If the compiler exceeds that then
> > it's just going to get killed by the OS.
> ... however, if we have a machine with 2G of RAM, but RLIMIT_DATA is
> set to, say, 128Mb, we should make sure that we don't set the minimum
> collection size to 256Mb and then hit RLIMIT_DATA before even trying
> one collection.
I'd be surprised if a machine had an RLIMIT_DATA that was lower than
RLIMIT_RSS, but you never know...