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
> Might I refer you to Mike Stump's answer regarding swap :)
I haven't seen it.
It was basically 'get more memory'. I'd like to understand if you're
really talking about 'when I compile this humungous source, I need
a lot of memory', or if it's 'when I compile this source, I use more
memory than is reasonable'.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
