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: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:38:55 +0000
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> It's not the case that there's one number for this parameter that is
> great for everyone. The current number is acceptable on small-memory
> machines but not optimal for larger machines. A larger number would
> be better for larger machines, but would cause small-memory machines
> to be unusable.
Can you define "large" and "small" here? I have a 32M machine which I use
for building native ARM compilers, and I wouldn't consider that to be
especially small, but these days the machine can't even bootstrap with -j1
without thrashing the disk -- it used to be possible to bootstrap with -j2
and have virtually no paging at all. Bootstrap times have crept up over
the last couple of years or so from about 3 hours to 9+ now; and I haven't
even attempted to build java yet on that machine :-(
And this is called progress.
R.