Date:	Tue, 9 May 2000 11:53:56 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Perfomance of gc-simple
In-Reply-To:	<39171653.5378.B2D59A@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000509115335.946F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 8 May 2000 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:

> With increase of GCC version it's becomming more and more memory 
> hungry (my tests under Linux with gcc-2.95.2 
> and recent snapshots of gcc-2.96 shows that gcc-2.96 took more than
> 1.5 times memory amount gcc-2.95.2 needed for compiling some 600 
> lines C++ source which rather heavily used STL).

How much memory, in absolute numbers, did that compilation take?

> So could we accept serious wasting memory when we have only 64Mb in
> DOS sessions under Win9X or WinNT.

If the machine has more than 64MB installed, Windows 9X lets it use
more than 64MB of VM when you set the DPMI memory of the DOS box to
Auto.  See section 15.6 of the FAQ.

So it seems that getting more than 64MB on modern machines and latest
versions of Windows is not such a big problem.

- Raw text -