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: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:50:11 -0400
Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
References: <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <1116249726.13457.49.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <4288B3FA.40706@coyotegulch.com> <200505161717.31407.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <1116258837.13457.68.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <200505161846.j4GIkPHi024539@greed.delorie.com>

On May 16, 2005, at 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

No company is going to spend money on fixing this until we adjust
our (collective) attitude and take this seriously.


We could call ulimit() to force everyone to have less available RAM.
Connect it with one of the maintainer flags, like enable-checking or
something, so it doesn't penalize distributors.


We already do that for when checking is enabled, well the GC heuristics
are tuned such that it does not change which is why
--enable-checking=release is always faster than without it.

-- Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
  - From: DJ Delorie

References:
- Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?
  - From: DJ Delorie

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