This is the mail archive of the 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: [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 larger programs
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.

Nathan --

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.


Mark Mitchell
(650) 331-3385 x713

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