Message-Id: <200005311635.TAA23319@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:34:30 +0200
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.1.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.5b
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
CC: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005312058020.1241-100000@roadrunner.grendel.net>
	(message from Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel on Wed, 31 May 2000 21:06:09
	+0600 (LKT))
Subject: Re: Internal compiler error
References:  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0005312058020 DOT 1241-100000 AT roadrunner DOT grendel DOT net>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 21:06:09 +0600 (LKT)
> From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
>
> Infact it shows the opposite...how badly gcc is desgined...from my
> experience other compilers..(Watcom, borland) require *far less* resources
> than gcc to compile programs..

Actually, this is one of the GNU coding guidelines; see the file
standards.info (it comes with GDB, for example).  The rationale is
that, since Unix utilities were traditionally written optimized for
memory size (because Unix was born on a 16-bit machine), writing
programs that consume lots of memory will lead to a very different
design, which will prevent Unix vendors from suing the FSF for
plagiarism.

> frex: Watcom v 10.x can compile almost any program with as little as 4MB
> of memory....while it would take almost that amount to load GCC
> completely in to memory..

Don't forget that Watcom (and others) are single-platform compilers,
while GCC is highly portable.