Re: [MiNT] Compiling with gcc: ld eats all ram

[Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>]

on 10/21/05 3:04 AM, Evan Langlois wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 20:21 -0400, Lonny Pursell wrote:
>> on 10/20/05 8:09 PM, Evan Langlois wrote:
>> 
>>> Considering my mail reader is currently using 166MB of memory, GCC isn't
>>> all that much of a hog by comparison.
>> 
>> But that is not a mailer running on an Atari.  Bad comparison.
>> aMail uses about 1mb.
> 
> And will running it on an Atari make it use more or less RAM?  NO!
> I can grab a copy of pine or elm and it will use even less RAM, but THAT
> would be a bad comparison.  I'm making a comparison with what is
> considered acceptable use for full-featured software by todays
> standards.  Yes, its sad that a mailer uses 150MB, but thats the way it
> is.

That's the way it is on your setup.  Your mailer must be written with
interpreted basic or something.  Even the crap m$ mailer I used to mail this
is only consuming 23mb at this moment in time.  It scares to even ponder how
m$ could pull off a more efficient mailer.

> While GCC may use more RAM than your mailer, its ported from a system
> where a mailer is 166MB.  THAT is a perfectly valid comparison.  If you
> want to use modern day, full-featured software like GCC, expect modern
> day memory requirements.  Thats 150MB for reading mail.

Even so, the ratio to bloat on your system appears to be staggeringly high.
In fact your systems mailer is 7.x times worse than my mac mailer.
Impressive bloat you got there.  lol
 
> The comparison is completely valid.  It would be *invalid* to compare
> PureC or Sozobon C to my mailer software, but not GCC.  GCC is native to
> GNU systems, not Atari.  Compare your 1MB mail reader to Atari native
> mail readers.
> 
> GCC isn't bloated or a hog.  *YOU* are doing the invalid comparison by
> comparing it to Atari software whos hardware and software technologies
> are nearing the 20 yr old mark.

I didn't say gcc was bloated or a hog.  I said the comparison was wrong
which I still think is the case.  Your basing the ratio on what you see on
your system.

-- 
Lonny Pursell    http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/