Marcin Dalecki writes: > > On 2005-04-11, at 14:01, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Nathan Sidwell writes: > >> Andrew Haley wrote: > >>> Nathan Sidwell writes: > >>>> Andrew Haley wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Might it still be possible for a front end to force all pending > >>>>> code > >>>>> to be generated, even with -fno-unit-at-a-time gone? > >>>> > >>>> I think this is a bad idea. You're essentially asking for the > >>>> backend > >>>> to retain all the functionality of -fno-unit-at-a-time. > >>> > >>> OK. So, what else? > >> As steven asked, I'd like to understand why this is not a problem > >> for the C++ community. There are several alternatives > >> > >> 1) The C++ programs are smaller than the java programs > > > > That's my guess. Usually, C++ users compile one source file at a > > time, whereas Java users find it convenient to compile a whole > > archive. > > If it is an archive the answer would be to change gcc.c to > recognize this and to let it compile the archive one item at a > time. (.jar).
Well, yes, but a) it would be slow, and b) the output is a .o file and we'd have to find some portable way to link a bunch of .o files into another .o. 'ld -r' works on some systems. Andrew.
