On Wednesday, 1 April 2015 at 02:54:48 UTC, Jake The Baker wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 19:27:35 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 March 2015 at 19:20:20 UTC, Jake The Baker
wrote:
As far as memory is concerned. How hard would it be to simply
have DMD use a swap file?
That'd hit the same walls as the operating system trying to
use a swap file at least - running out of address space, and
being brutally slow even if it does keep running.
I doubt it. If most modules are sparsely used it would improve
memory usage in proportion to that.
Basically if D would monitor file/module usage and compile areas
that are relatively independent it should minimize disk usage.
Basically page out stuff you know won't be needed. If it was
smart enough it could order the data through module usage and
compile the independent ones first, then only the ones that are
simple dependencies, etc).
The benefits to such a system is that larger projects get the
biggest boost(there are more independent modules floating
around.
Hence at some point it becomes a non-issue.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, sorry.
I'm compiling modules separately already to object files. I think
that helps reduce memory usage but I could be mistaken.
I think the main culprit now is my attempts to (ab)use CTFE.
After switching to DMD 2.066 I started adding `enum val=f()`
where I could. After reading the discussions here I went about
reverting most of these back to `auto val=<blah>` and I'm
building again :-)
DMD 2.067 is now maxing out at ~3.8GB and stable.
bye,
lobo
