Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 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
6) Java programs (more precisely) typically have to fit in a single
"unit", therefore tend to make Java "units" much larger than C++'s.
(And incidently, Java representation is usually richer than
C++'s.)
6+5/2
-- Gaby
