This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Unit at a time and C PCH

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rguenther at suse dot de
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:15:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
References: <20080618145341.GO7888@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <4859256E.4010904@google.com> <20080618151811.GP7888@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <48592A8A.2030802@redhat.com>
Reply-to: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

>> Java use no-unit-at-a-time by default because large bytecode units
>> explode in memory.

Andrew> It is possible that identifier GC fixes this.  The explosion
Andrew> was mainly identifiers.

I did not realize that -- cool.

Do we have a canonical gcj test case for this?

If it is a .jar file, I think I probably don't care too much.  My
reasoning here is that users already have to split jars to avoid TOC
overflows.

If we have a monster .class file, then that would be interesting.

Note that gcj does not use PCH at all.  So, it is no problem for us if
PCH and no-unit-at-a-time are incompatible.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Jan Hubicka

References:
- Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: Unit at a time and C PCH
  - From: Andrew Haley

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