This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mstump at apple dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 23:59:20 +0000
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
References: <20030130202129.GB12150@daikokuya.co.uk> <3EFC71B9-34A9-11D7-8309-003065A77310@apple.com> <20030130233824.GA14045@daikokuya.co.uk> <20030130235501.GA22689@disaster.jaj.com>

Phil Edwards wrote:-

> I detect the note of frustration, but I think this is an experiment
> worth making.  Say, allow --with-gc=none (re-allow?) to choose ggc-none.c,
> and see what happens.
> 
> Perhaps the compiler need only turn on GC at all once a threshold number
> of... something... has been passed.  (Statements?  Tree nodes created?
> Dunno.)

Whatever we do, the worst thing is to make GCC non-deterministic.

Someone suggested this (Geoff?) and someone else (Mike I think!) pointed
out what a bad idea this was.

Neil.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
  - From: Mike Stump

References:
- Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
  - From: Phil Edwards

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]