Subject: Re: proposal: libcc1 -> static
To: Todd Vierling <tv@pobox.com>
From: David Brownlee <abs@anim.dreamworks.com>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 01/04/1999 18:23:21
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Todd Vierling wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, David Brownlee wrote:
>
> : Wasn't one of the ideas behind going to libcc1.so to share memory
> : between different passes of the compiler to make using pipes
> : feasible. (The whole point being to speed up compiling).
>
> Demand paged VM == for the same language, you get this benefit anyway.
> Remember that binaries' text pages are shared, even between different
> invocations, as well as unmodified data pages. A shared object actually
> slows down each invocation because of all the reloc fixups. Christoph
> drilled this reminder into me. :>
>
Uh, I do not believe that applies here (Unless different passes of
the compiler are implemented using the same binary :)
I understood that a single compile would use cc1, cc1obj and
(potentially cc1plus), in which case if you are using -pipe then
you could win with having one copy of libcc1.so in memory shared
between them?
David/absolute
-=- "Just adding to the wrinkles on his deathly frown" -=-