This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: Whats the real penalty of non-mmap ggc?

From: Kean Johnston <jkj at sco dot com>
To: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:04:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Whats the real penalty of non-mmap ggc?
References: <434D43EA.1090804@sco.com> <m2slv6ocft.fsf@greed.local>
Reply-to: jkj at sco dot com

Ideally, though, you would find some chunk of address space that is
always free on your OS and just use that with mmap; that's pretty much
guaranteed to be faster and more reliable.


Aha thanks. I looked at host-linux.c and adapted its
gt_pch_get_address to taste, added that to host-sco.c
and now all the tests pass. Thanks for the pointer (no
pun intended).

Kean

References:
- Whats the real penalty of non-mmap ggc?
  - From: Kean Johnston
- Re: Whats the real penalty of non-mmap ggc?
  - From: Geoffrey Keating

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