Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/04/17/05:19:17
Paul Derbyshire writes:
> What the hell is wrong with the cc1plus.exe in pgcc 1.0.1?!?!?!
> There is NO WAY IN HELL it is using 64 entire megabytes and then
> trying to get more! What is REALLY wrong and why doesn't cc1plus.exe
> issue a more accurate and informative error message???
Actually, I think that it probably is using this much memory. I've
often seen PGCC use stupid amounts of RAM for quite normal looking
input files, even when compiling straight C code.
> I would like to have some feedback about this and an estimate for
> when this extremely serious bug will be fixed,
Hey, relax! This aggressive tone just serves to annoy people, rather
than making them want to help you.
Re. when the memory usage might be improved, my understanding is that
PGCC is still very much in development, rather than being a finished,
release quality compiler. As such, occassional problems are only to
be expected: the appropriate response is either to politely point them
out to the developers (who probably don't read this group, btw.) or to
just wait _patiently_ until they are corrected.
> ASAP, since a project I'm working on is completely stalled until I
> have a cc1plus.exe that will faithfully compile my code under the
> sole condition that the code be syntactically correct.
If it doesn't work for you, don't use it! Personally I agree with you
that the PGCC memory usage is excessive, which is why I am still using
the stock djgpp compiler. If you really need the extra optimisations,
either rewrite your code so that it will compile with less memory, or
tweak your system to make more swap available (this probably means
using DOS+CWSDPMI rather than the broken win95 DPMI server).
Shawn Hargreaves.
- Raw text -