X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<5353CE51.2010801@gmx.de>
Date:	Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:40:33 +0200
From:	Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: gcc-4.9.0 20140411 snapshot for DJGPP
References:	<53492C99 DOT 7090109 AT iki DOT fi>
In-Reply-To:	<53492C99.7090109@iki.fi>
X-Provags-ID:	V03:K0:cpRmA5kY4ydqth+jLKPKsNE2v2I3qm6Z5TgEO/mmB4Kjs0V588I
	sI1+qfRTXCtmmiStj9Vqxak2VoJuuLgqkhNlRBdpdyI8ZqdABKmGJC3uCPYUHbS641bBwqy
	SBjEjKz43sftCHE4cegqR0mX3gWpE5ImEdm0M0vDpq3fjends1EdDkI+lum0PwDNaw1h+9B
	lttP0KXwelMw5DeDAI/9Q==
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Am 12.04.2014 14:07, schrieb Andris Pavenis:
> Yesterday gcc-4_9-branch was created and gcc-4.9.0 prerelease
> was made available. That means that actual gcc-4.9.0 is near:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-04/msg00091.html
>
> My build of snapshot from gcc-4_9-branch is available at
>
> http://ap1.pp.fi/djgpp/gcc/test/4.9.0-20140411/
>
> I did some testing for C++:
> - built cln-1.3.2 and run its test. All works out of box as earlier
> - built GiNaC (www.ginac.de). Builds out of box. Some tests seem
>   to run extremely slowly. I suspect that DJGPP v2.04 slow free() is biting.
>
> Of course it bootstraps OK (except of getting stuck once while
> configuring libstdc++-v3: it happens randomly in the same place
> when building under Windows Vista, I do not know why).
>
> About DJGPP v2.04 slow free(): I have used nmalloc for building gcc
> already for a long time as gcc allocates and frees large number of
> memory blocks and DJGPP v2.04 own memory management is too slow.
>
> Perhaps it could be time use nmalloc for DJGPP libc.
>
> Andris
>

Have you ever managed to merge nmalloc into your local CVS repository?
IIRC I have tried a year ago but I failed.  I did not really understood how
djgpp's malloc worked and I also did not understood how nmalloc worked
so it was impossible to me to replace one with the other and I gave up.
If you have merged the code you can send me a patch and I will try the
nmalloc changes with some code of mine.

Regards,
Juan M. Guerrero

- Raw text -