Re: Compilers for supercomputing or the opposite ?

glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:09:22 -0800

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Compilers for supercomputing or the opposite ? wenhelt@free.fr (2007-10-05)
Re: Compilers for supercomputing or the opposite ? DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-10-06)
Re: Compilers for supercomputing or the opposite ? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-10-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:09:22 -0800
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 07-10-037
Keywords: symbols
Posted-Date: 06 Oct 2007 14:44:24 EDT

wenhelt@free.fr wrote:


> Although compiler code for supercomputing is commonplace,
> supercomputing FOR compilers is coming.


> For an EDA (Electronic Design Automation) project, we are facing
> symbol tables over 500 million entries.


I believe one of the traditional reasons for separate compilation of
subroutines and linking is that it reduces the number of symbols that
you have to keep track of at one time. Only one routine worth of
internal symbols for the compiler. All the external symbols for the
linker. Do you mean 5e8 symbols for one subroutine?


-- glen

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.