Sam Lauber wrote:
if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a
_very_ long time swapping
Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
You don't know whay swapping is? Shifting memory over from physical RAM
to the hard drive when not in use, and putting it back in RAM when in use. aby
Er yes, do you not know what a gigabyte is? its a chunk of physical RAM that
avoids the need for such swapping :-) (I hardly ever see any significant
swapping
on my notebook that has 2 gigs, so I can't get excited over the issue. I quite
understand that if I was struggling with a machine with only half a gig,
especially
running XP, gcc would be causing considerable grief in some cases.
[1] I don't know if any machines do, but last time I looked at `-1(%esp)', I
thought so.
All machines allow random access to the stack. I have no idea what you are
talking about here or what the relevance of -1(%esp) might be.
