This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
- From: Mike Stump <mstump at apple dot com>
- To: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
- Cc: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:22:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Neil Booth 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.
Scream now, as last I knew Geoff wanted to check the paging activity on
the system to dynamically tune the number. Last I knew, we planned a
mode where one could get the deterministic results, though,
unfortunately, if one wants to debug a problem, and when they ask for
determinism, if the problem goes away, we are sol. Geoff's contention
I think is that this is unlikely, and that there should be few bugs of
these sorts. I'm happy to try it out and see, we can decide later if
it really is a pain or not.
The biggest hit for me is, I must select the deterministic mode, as
otherwise, I cannot breakpoint on address equality, which I like so
very much.
I'm trying to envision the documentation:
--please-make-compiler-deterministic
Eliminates non-determinism from the compiler.
:-) It that an -f option, or an -m option?