Re: [cp-patches] Re: RFC: Reduce number of split-for-gcj lists

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 03:05 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:48 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > Mark> It does mean a change in any of the deeply nested packages triggers
> > Mark> re-compilation of a few more files in its 'parent-package'. But I feel
> > Mark> the overall compile time reduction is worth it.
> > 
> > Does it noticeably impact memory use?  One reason we did the splitting
> > this way rather than all-at-once was that some compilations used an
> > excessive amount of memory.
> 
> Not noticeably on my machine (it does when I reduce it to just 2 levels,
> then swing takes up a lot of memory - it does slashes compile time in
> half again...). But my dev-machine has lots of memory. I can explicitly
> try on one with much less memory later this week.

I tried testing on an old ppc machine with just 192MB memory, doubled to
a whopping 384MB through the use of swap. Most of the build goes fine.
But unfortunately our friend bug #21418 seems to be back:

/usr/bin/gcj -Wno-deprecated --encoding=UTF-8 --bootclasspath '' --classpath 
..:../../classpath/vm/reference:../../classpath:../../classpath/external/w3c_dom:../../classpath/external/sax:.:
 -C -d . -MD -MF lists/javax-swing.deps -MT lists/javax-swing.stamp -MP 
@lists/javax-swing.list
../../classpath/javax/swing/Box.java:67: error: Nested class 
java.awt.Container$AccessibleAWTContainer is protected; cannot be accessed from 
here.
     protected class AccessibleBox extends Container.AccessibleAWTContainer
                                           ^
../../classpath/javax/swing/Box.java:92: error: Nested class 
java.awt.Component$AccessibleAWTComponent is protected; cannot be accessed from 
here.
         extends Component.AccessibleAWTComponent
                 ^
2 errors

So my testing on this box is halted again till I can figure out another
workaround. Sigh. None of my other setups show this bug anymore which is
kind of strange.

I still think the patch is valuable since it saves so much compile time
and the above error occurs with and without my patch.

Cheers,

Mark

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part