Am 02.03.2013 17:24, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
In our previous episode, Florian Klaempfl said:
I don't see why there would be more synchronization overhead than make?
In a parallelized compiler symtables etc. might be shared and this might
require a lot of synchronization to prevent data corruption.
With make, the different units can be seperated much better by a human
than the compiler can do.
Only if you want to avoid multiply used units to be only once in memory.
IMHO if you are afraid of that, then don't do that :-)
Forking compilers on a by unit level instead of some meta level is
typically slower because reading ppus takes a lot of time.
Not to mention the huge effort it would be to get the compiler
parallelized internally.
As said the first step can be relatively simple. Get rid of globals some
more, and then only the parts before compile() needs to be changed.
In theory, yes. In practice this is a huge effort. Just one example:
inlining requires that the node tree of a procedure is copied. However,
during copying the tree is annotated for proper copying. Bottom line:
even if the compiler finished to compile a unit, the generated info is
not read only.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
