This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- From: kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de (Kai Henningsen)
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 May 2005 16:53:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
- References: <200504271441.j3REfND27584@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20050429222259.GA25544@synopsys.com> <4272B949.email@example.com> <4272B949.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Haley) wrote on 30.04.05 in <email@example.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?!