This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Advice requested: how big can we be?
Karel Gardas writes:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Joe Buck writes:
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 05:50:32PM +0200, S. Bosscher wrote:
> > > > You are going to make it impossible for many people to contribute
> > > > to GCC or you'll have to accept that patches will be posted that
> > > > have not been tested with Java enabled, and that even fewer
> > > > people will be able to produce test results for GCJ.
> > >
> > > I already skip Java builds and tests most of the time because it is so
> > > expensive, and I'm sure that many others do the same.
> > So am I. But a Java compatible library is big, and there's nothing we
> > can do about that.
> I don't know gcj, but what about to divide one lib into several for
> example following root packages? i.e. libgcjjavanet, libgcjjavalang,
> libgcjjavautil etc.
We could do that. It would be a bit cumbersome, so I'm not keen on
the idea. I see the advantage, though.
> > What I am interested to know is the class of boxes on which we can
> > reasonably expect people to build gcc.
> Slow (notebook) PIII-1GHz + 512MB RAM + 512 MB swap. Anyway I always buy
> rather more memory than usuall since this machine should run for 3 years
> and serve me well. I plan for next purchase (next year) to require 2GB
Apart from the problem with the very large source build -- which we're
fixing -- the largest process on my box is 93M while liking libgcj.
We can make the libgcj build faster on some boxes by using a lot of
RAM. On a 1Gbyte box the build would almost definitely be faster
building everything at once.