pan-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Pan-devel] Re: Insane amount of memory required during compilation


From: GISQUET Christophe
Subject: Re: [Pan-devel] Re: Insane amount of memory required during compilation
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 21:01:39 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)

Hello,

Duncan wrote:
"Charles Kerr" <address@hidden> posted
binary scorefile-test. For the record, this computer has 1GB RAM and 1GB
swap.
Yep, this has been reported a couple of times on pan-users IIRC.

It really shows I should check pan-users before posting to pan-devel.

x86_64 anyway, compiling pan with gcc 3.4.6 required very close to 1.3
gigs of memory at once point in the process (with the scorefile stuff,with
my CFLAGS).  Someone else reported this and I confirmed.

I think it indeed aborted at around 1.1GB. I had other memory intensive applications paused and flushed to swap, which explains it failed with my 1+1GB setup.

EULA), this now confirms the problem thru gcc 4.0.x and with at least
32-bit MSWormOS.  To my knowledge, we still haven't confirmed it on 32-bit
x86 Linux, however.

Scratch my report, I thought CXX=g++-4.0.2 make would achieve what I expected but Makefile has g++ hardcoded. I launched again configure so as to use the proper version of g++ and it did compile without problem.

Once stripped the 4.0.2 binary size is 2196K compared to 2544 with 3.4.5. This shows a rather noticeable difference in inlining and probably template compilation management.

FWIW, the only other package I can personally verify that  requires that
sort of compile-time resources is KDE's kmail (also C++ based).  However,

I know a lib that was compilable under another compiler. While it would take like 30s with that compiler, g++ was taking around 8 minutes on the same computer and probably twice as more memory, although I never checked exactly the later figure.

it still requires them with new gccs, while pan's requirement goes down
substantially with gcc 4.1.x.

Too bad g++ often has regressions (and I'm not mixing this up with strictness increase).

Thanks for the heads up,
Christophe GISQUET




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]