From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14845 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2009 11:52:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14833 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2009 11:52:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f179.google.com) (209.85.216.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:52:34 +0000 Received: by pxi9 with SMTP id 9so38177pxi.14 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.139.6 with SMTP id r6mr1233230wfn.282.1250682752737; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Paullaptop (203-206-7-21.dyn.iinet.net.au [203.206.7.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm21693633wfg.5.2009.08.19.04.52.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 04:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: From: "Paul Edwards" To: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: References: <200908121348.n7CDmrV1012019@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200908121348.n7CDmrV1012019@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Subject: Re: i370 port Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:07:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 > Hmm, it seems 3.2.x would *always* operate on a function-by-function > basis. The unit-at-a-time mode was only introduced with 3.4 (I don't > recall if it was already present in 3.3). I don't think there is any > way in 3.2.3 to check whether there is a "main" function in the file > before it is processed ... Ulrich, this comment got me thinking. If global optimization is not being done, then less of the source file would need to be in memory at the same time. How much memory do you think is required to process the largest GCC 3.2.3 source file (ie when self-compiling)? My experience is that fold-const.c requires 20 MB of memory (not including the size of the executable) to compile with -Os. That's the biggest. Is that typical/expected? Because it just occurred to me that maybe the lack of a "normal" implementation of alloca() is causing memory to not be released, and it's taking more space than it needs to. Thanks. Paul.