This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com, neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:01:02 -0800
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
- References: <200301311038.h0VActa02524@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:38:55 +0000
> From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
> > It's not the case that there's one number for this parameter that is
> > great for everyone. The current number is acceptable on small-memory
> > machines but not optimal for larger machines. A larger number would
> > be better for larger machines, but would cause small-memory machines
> > to be unusable.
>
> Can you define "large" and "small" here? I have a 32M machine which I use
> for building native ARM compilers, and I wouldn't consider that to be
> especially small, but these days the machine can't even bootstrap with -j1
> without thrashing the disk -- it used to be possible to bootstrap with -j2
> and have virtually no paging at all. Bootstrap times have crept up over
> the last couple of years or so from about 3 hours to 9+ now; and I haven't
> even attempted to build java yet on that machine :-(
>
> And this is called progress.
`large' and `small' are relative terms. I'm pretty sure a machine
with 32M is always small, and with 1G is large, but it depends on (for
instance) how many compiles are running and what else is on the
machine.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>