This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do we still need ggc-simple
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Nick Burrett <nick at dsvr dot net>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, Ben Elliston <bje at wasabisystems dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:33:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: Do we still need ggc-simple
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200311200001.52851.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <3FD6F875.6080305@dsvr.net> <200312140100.02181.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <3FDC3CD6.7080900@dsvr.net>
- Reply-to: mark at codesourcery dot com
On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 02:35, Nick Burrett wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 December 2003 11:41, Nick Burrett wrote:
> >
> >>Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >>
> >>>Why do we still have ggc-simple? Are there any targets for which
> >>>ggc-page doesn't work?
> >>
> >>Yes (arm-riscos-aof), though it is maintained outside of the GCC tree.
> >
> >
> > OK. So I like bitching.
> >
> > Why is arm-riscos-aof not using ggc-page with malloc?
>
> Sorry. The last time I looked to make the decision on using ggc-page or
> ggc-simple, I figured that ggc-page was a solely mmap implementation.
> Upon reading the code further, I notice it isn't and therefore I will
> drop my requirement for ggc-simple.
Based on this discussion, I will pre-approve a patch to remove all
traces of ggc-simple.c from the mainline.
--
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC