This is the mail archive of the 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: Getting rid of -fno-unit-at-a-time [Was Re: RFC: Preserving orderof functions and top-level asms via cgraph]

Andrew Haley wrote:
Nathan Sidwell writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Might it still be possible for a front end to force all pending code
> > to be generated, even with -fno-unit-at-a-time gone?
> > I think this is a bad idea. You're essentially asking for the backend
> to retain all the functionality of -fno-unit-at-a-time.

OK. So, what else?
As steven asked, I'd like to understand why this is not a problem
for the C++ community.  There are several alternatives

1) The C++ programs are smaller than the java programs
2) the c++ representation is denser
3) the c++ users have more memory
4) The ones the C++ community *has* complained about are seen as
pathelogical cases or acknowledged IR deficiencies
5) The c++ community are too timid to complain

> Might I refer you to Mike Stump's answer regarding swap :)

I haven't seen it.

It was basically 'get more memory'. I'd like to understand if you're really talking about 'when I compile this humungous source, I need a lot of memory', or if it's 'when I compile this source, I use more memory than is reasonable'.


Nathan Sidwell    ::   ::     CodeSourcery LLC    ::

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