Tony Wetmore wrote:
Alejandro Pulver wrote:
>> RAM! Of course we could make gcc more economical, and
>> we could somewhat reduce memory usage, but you're asking
>> for something really hard.
>
> I wasn't asking to change the program, I was just asking
> if there is an already existing option.
I think Andrew may have meant that you are asking GCC to do something
really hard, to optimize a single function that is so large. And asking
the compiler to do something that hard has a price -- it requires lots
of memory, as you have discovered.
I was saying exactly that, thank you for clarifying.
The thing to realize is that it is really hard to do a great job of optimizing
huge functions. So, it's quite likely that gcc will do a better job of
optimizing a bunch of small functions, with well-contained locality of variables,
than one huge function.
OK, so you will have the overhead of a function call. But on most architectures
that isn't enormous.
Andrew.
