This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] more conservative heuristic for ggc-min-heapsize
Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 13:59 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 6, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
The larger static value (20Mb vs. 16Mb) is intended to accommodate
I'd phrase is this way, there is memory in use behind our back that
we don't account for and don't control, so give them just a little
more room to play in. This part I think is reasonable.
I think your patch is OK for Stage 1. Obviously, as you point out, this
is a highly imperfect system. Without either (a) a true LISP/Java-like
GC, that can run whenever we actually run out of memory, or (b) a coding
approach that manually deallocates memory as soon as possible, there
will always be programs that could be compiled (if we were able to
collect free memory) that in fact fail. But, I think erring a bit more
on the side of caution is a good thing. Distributors who want to trade
a bit of reliability for a bit of speed can always tune the values.
(650) 331-3385 x713