|Compilers for supercomputing or the opposite ? firstname.lastname@example.org (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 ? email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-10-06)|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:09:22 -0800|
|Posted-Date:||06 Oct 2007 14:44:24 EDT|
> 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?
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.