Date:	Tue, 9 May 2000 12:27:35 +0200 (WET)
From:	Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Perfomance of gc-simple
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000509115335.946F-100000@is>
Message-ID:	<Pine.A41.4.05.10005091220140.51104-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
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 Tue, 9 May 2000, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> 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?
> 

gcc-2.95.2 took about 15Mb and about 25 seconds to compile,
gcc-2.96 took about 25-30Mb and about 40 seconds to compile. I don't 
remember exact numbers and I have split source into parts as I need
to compile also for DJGPP and an another limitting factor is RAM disk
size.

> > 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.
> 

Then it should be Ok. Anyway we should try to avoid wasting memory if
possible.

Andris

- Raw text -