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 order of functions and top-level asms via cgraph]

Nathan Sidwell <> writes:

| 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

  6) Java programs (more precisely) typically have to fit in a single 
     "unit", therefore tend to make Java "units" much larger than C++'s.
     (And incidently, Java representation is usually richer than

-- Gaby

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