Re: Advice requested: how big can we be?

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Haley writes:
 > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
 >  > On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 04:30:20PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
 >  > > The current libgcj build requires a process size > 256M bytes.
 >  > > 
 >  > > Is this unreasonable?  Should we be able to build on boxes with less
 >  > > swap than that?  Or shall we just say "512M swap or don't bother
 >  > > building libgcj" ?
 >  > 
 >  > Has anyone profiled this - is it all reasonably necessary or is
 >  > some of it e.g. LD being dumb?
 > 
 > It's all reasonably necessary.  We compile a ton of source files in
 > one go, which means that we only open each one once.  However, this
 > does of course mean that we keep a lot of trees in memory.  We might
 > be able to prune these trees, but it would not make a vast difference.

We've changed the libgcj build so that it no longer does this by
default.  We are committed to reducing the burden of building libgcj
as much as is possible, but it is a big library.

Andrew.