This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Unit at a time and C PCH

From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rguenther at suse dot de
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:32:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
References: <20080618145341.GO7888@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4859256E.4010904@google.com> <20080618151811.GP7888@kam.mff.cuni.cz>

Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 6/18/08 10:53 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>
>>> 	* c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): PCH is not compatible with
>>> 	no-unit-at-a-time.
>>> 	* opts.c (handle_options): Enable unit-at-a-time at O0 along with
>>> 	-fno-toplevel-reorder by default now.
>> OK.  I'm almost tempted to go further and consider removing 
>> no-unit-at-a-time completely.  What are the cases where 
>> -fno-unit-at-a-time is useful?
> 
> Java use no-unit-at-a-time by default because large bytecode units
> explode in memory.

It is possible that identifier GC fixes this.  The explosion was mainly
identifiers.

Andrew.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Tom Tromey

References:
- Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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