From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20603 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2004 05:53:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20589 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2004 05:53:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Sep 2004 05:53:06 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i8E5r0E2013901; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:53:05 -0400 Received: from [172.16.50.38] (vpn50-38.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.38]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i8E5qsr21448; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:52:54 -0400 Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-09-13) From: Jeffrey A Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: Mark Mitchell Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <41467AFA.3020200@codesourcery.com> References: <414627A4.4080109@codesourcery.com> <1095135012.10968.268.camel@localhost.localdomain> <41467AFA.3020200@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat, Inc Message-Id: <1095141173.10968.335.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 06:29:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00831.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-09-13 at 23:00, Mark Mitchell wrote: The biggest > caveat is the one you have been raising recently: that touching pages > merely for the purpose of marking memory as free is by no means always a > win. But, if you can make data structures smaller in the first place, > and just allocate less along the way, that's going to help. I expect I'll be looking at allocating fewer objects in the first place rather than trying to allocate smaller objects. > So, yes, this is OK -- but please do use your judgement about the > prudence of attempting major overhauls. The smaller the change (whether > in terms of lines of code or in terms of conceptual complexity) the > better, naturally. OK. Understood. Thanks for the clarifications, Jeff