From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 15:57:07 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AF916A469 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:57:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from smtp.utwente.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:1908:1000:204:23ff:feb7:ef56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3445D13C4FF for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:57:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from lux.student.utwente.nl (lux.student.utwente.nl [130.89.170.81]) by smtp.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id lARFv0iq007644; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:57:01 +0100 From: Pieter de Goeje To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:56:59 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <474C3A12.9040107@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <474C3A12.9040107@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711271657.00637.pieter@degoeje.nl> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: pieter@degoeje.nl X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Andy Greenwood , Aryeh Friedman Subject: Re: Upper limit on make -j ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:57:07 -0000 On Tuesday 27 November 2007, Andy Greenwood wrote: > Aryeh Friedman wrote: > > Before I file a PR I just want to know if it is worth it to file a PR > > for: > > > > make -j1000 buildworld buildkernel installkernel > > seg faulting > > I thought that the kernel builds couldn't be built using parallel jobs, > that it might break something. Is that not true? In my experience parallel kernel builds are fine. I think (wild guess) the OP is running out of memory and somewhere in make or gcc the return value of malloc() isn't checked. - Pieter de Goeje