Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:00:22 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Michiel Boland <michiel@boland.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> Subject: Re: gcc memory consumption: amd64 v i386 Message-ID: <20070526200021.GA53296@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705261614220.15153@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net> References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705252135230.2140@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net> <b41c75520705260230h3a0e2050s7d652e7070aa528f@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705261614220.15153@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 04:19:38PM +0200, Michiel Boland wrote: > >>Hi. I noticed that compilation of xorg-server on i386 with the new gcc > >>proceeds normally, whereas compilation on amd64 would crash because the > >>compiler would consume all memory. The i386 and amd64 boxen have the same > >>amount of RAM and swap, obviously. And they run, give or take a few hours, > >>more or less same version of -CURRENT. > > > >It does not crash if you have enough swap. I have 2 GB swap and it > >proceeded fine after some swapping. > > The point I was trying to make (although perhaps not clearly enough) is > that there is no reason that a trivial source file takes up such a huge > amount of memory to compile. Especially since gcc 3.4.6 does not blow up > like that. Of course there is a reason. You mean "there is no reason I currently understand". Every new version of gcc brings new optimizations. Typically these may require additional memory at compile time to produce a space or time saving at runtime. That's the trade-off. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070526200021.GA53296>