> On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait for > >the tuples or there will be a lot of throw-away code. > > If you really only can think of LTO as the reader/writer, then perhaps > yes. But if you read back this thread, you would have seen a bunch of > suggestions for how you can help with LTO prerequisites that do not > depend on tuples at all. You should look at the bigger picture.
Even concerning the reader/writer there is alot of parallelizm - writting nested gimple is just slightly different from tuples and we still need to learn how to deal with the rest of infrastructure (types, declarations, add on datastructures, APIs). We also do have LTO for Java, getting our memory consumption down to level so -funit-at-a-time is practically useful for large Java applications would make C/C++ LTO work too once writer/reader is at the place. The memory consumption is quite evenly distributed across varioius datastructures - it is definitly not like tuples will solve the problem alone - it is going to make about 13-18% of overall footprint of parsed program. Cleanups and simplifications of other datastructures are easilly done in parallel and bring immediate benefits. Honza > > Gr. > Steven
