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 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?


aph@redhat.com (Andrew Haley)  wrote on 30.04.05 in <17011.21540.530634.763156@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>:

> Matt Thomas writes:
>  > Joe Buck wrote:
>  > > I think you need to talk to the binutils people.  It should be possible
>  > > to make ar and ld more memory-efficient.
>  >
>  > Even though systems maybe demand paged, having super large
>  > libraries that consume lots of address space can be a problem.
>  >
>  > I'd like to libjava be split into multiple shared libraries.  In C,
>  > we have libc, libm, libpthread, etc.  In X11, there's X11, Xt, etc.
>  > So why does java have everything in one shared library?  Could the
>  > swing stuff be moved to its own?  Are there other logical
>  > divisions?
>
> It might be nice, certainly.  However, there are some surprising
> dependencies between parts of the Java library, and these would cause
> separate shared libraries to depend on each other, negating most of
> the advantage of separation.
>
> We are in the process of rewriting the Java ABI so that sumbol
> resolution in libraries is done lazily rather than eagerly.  This will
> help.  Even so, I would prefer to divide libjava -- if it is to be
> divided -- on a logical basis rather than simply in order to make
> libraries smaller.

Surely the other mentioned library divisions (libc, X) were *also* done on  
a logical basis?!

MfG Kai


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