GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4

[Geoff Keating]

> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:38:55 +0000
> From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>

> > It's not the case that there's one number for this parameter that is
> > great for everyone.  The current number is acceptable on small-memory
> > machines but not optimal for larger machines.  A larger number would
> > be better for larger machines, but would cause small-memory machines
> > to be unusable.
> 
> Can you define "large" and "small" here?  I have a 32M machine which I use 
> for building native ARM compilers, and I wouldn't consider that to be 
> especially small, but these days the machine can't even bootstrap with -j1 
> without thrashing the disk -- it used to be possible to bootstrap with -j2 
> and have virtually no paging at all.  Bootstrap times have crept up over 
> the last couple of years or so from about 3 hours to 9+ now; and I haven't 
> even attempted to build java yet on that machine :-(
> 
> And this is called progress.

`large' and `small' are relative terms.  I'm pretty sure a machine
with 32M is always small, and with 1G is large, but it depends on (for
instance) how many compiles are running and what else is on the
machine.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>