But we have already established that gcc for Linux is much faster than gcc on Windows, so comparing your Linux machine to a Windows system is unfair.
--
Mats
Printable View
Well, doesn't matter anyway... 512 MB or 512 TB... Heh.
But I do find it a little stretch to say it's plenty. Enough perhaps. But not plenty.
I agree with that - having more memory in the machine than what you can actually use makes no sense at all.
But 512MB is not "much" in todays terms - which was my original point. The processor in manav's system is fast enough [assuming it's not also busy doing something else, so that's not the source of slow compiles]. Antivirus software and/or lack of memory comes up next on the list.
--
Mats
Absolutely. My answer to Elysia was however a generalization, since that is how it was put by her. And in general terms it simply depends on what one does with their computer and what OS & software is installed.
Make no mistake, my wxWidgets project will eventually grow enough my current system is no longer able to be so productive, even on Linux. At that time 512MB will no longer be plenty, but... not enough anymore.
However, what I always experienced all my life is that before I felt the need to upgrade memory, I always felt the need to upgrade the whole damn computer
anyways. I feel that processors are in more demand as far as upgrades are concerned than memory.
That's funny. The processor is the least I've felt needing upgrading.
Still using my old Athlon64 X2 3800+. It's done good work so far.
Eventually, I'll get quad core, but then the whole mainboard needs to go out the window.
Even graphics card are more plenty upgraded than the processor...
When I had 512 MB of memory, I could never finish compiling the Fox Toolkit using the MinGW port of g++ 3.4.2 on MSYS. I added another 512 MB of memory and could compile without problems.
I suspect that one will get the most out of a memory upgrade by upping it to 1 GB to 2 GB. Beyond 2 GB the law of diminishing returns may set in, and upgrading the processor and motherboard could be more effective.
It's sad but true... iostream seems to be a very heavy header these days.
I am also disappointed at how much code the standard library drags in when you try to do even very simple stuff. A statically linked "hello world" on my system is about 400k. A link dependency map shows that it all traces back to internal calls to vsprintf(), which amazingly, causes memory to be allocated with malloc(), which drags in other runtime components, which drag in yet more... Until you're at 400 kilobytes.
I find that another reason to use redistribute runtime instead of static. So long as the runtime will function correctly, that is, when installed in the system folder (not messing up other programs).
Do you know how much I wish we could distribute our products in dynamic form? We do on Windows, but our Linux customers have such a variety of old glibc versions that dynamic linking just isn't an option. I wish the glibc designers were not so nonchalant about binary-breaking changes. "Oh, the user can just recompile..." Yeah right.
I feel hatred towards library designers expressing themselves through a heated post :)
Okay, it took me a while to parse that. I thought you mean that you, personally, felt hatred toward library designers, designers who express themselves through heated posts.
But what you mean is, You feel, that somebody (me) has hatred for library designers, and that person (me) is expressing himself in a heated post. Right?
I guess you're not far from the mark. "Hatred" is a strong word though :)
Maybe hatred is a bad word...
I meant, frustration :)
Yep, you feel frustration for library designers...
Stroustrup claims that it is not the library designers fault, but the library implementors fault.Quote:
Yep, you feel frustration for library designers...
Well, I wasn't griping about the executable size (large size is expected when linking statically), but the fact that they almost deliberately go out of their way to make it impossible to link dynamically if you actually want to target a wide variety of systems.
It's understandable (GNU is all about free software after all, and doesn't really care too much about the problems of commercial closed source vendors) but annoying.
I think Elysia meant that. It's still annoying though because you might as well ask your grocery store owner to better implement libraries. His "uh" and "whatcha talking about?" will be more than the almost guaranteed lack of response from a library implementor.