Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 20:28:38 +0200 (MEST)
From: Michiel Boland <michiel@boland.org>
To: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Wes Morgan <morganw@chemikals.org>
Subject: Re: Problem compiling xorg-server{-snap} on recent -CURRENT
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705212018490.7449@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net>
In-Reply-To: <863b1qrz11.fsf@dwp.des.no>
References: <200705202254.45347.jonathan@fosburgh.org> <20070521011217.O44264@volatile.chemikals.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705210815340.13001@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net> <863b1qrz11.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> My build of xorg-server died. The box ran out of swap space. I have >> 512M RAM + 1G swap. Someone please tell me this is a glitch in the new >> gcc. I don't want to add ram just to be able to compile a simple >> program. :) > > The quick fix is to build at a lower optimization level. Advanced > optimizations can be very memory-consuming, especially when compiling > unusually large source files, or source files which contain unusually > large functions. Ok, that appears to do the trick. Compile without any optimization at all. But I wonder: what is the point of a huge object file with 10000 or so symbols, of which I most likely will use only one or two? I thought the whole point of the new xorg was the modularity. (I'm afraid I'm getting a bit off-topic now, so I will quickly stop my ranting here. :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0705212018490.7449>