From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 26 04:06:04 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A27116A400
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 26 May 2007 04:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu)
Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu
	[140.142.32.135])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EE913C45A
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 26 May 2007 04:06:04 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu)
Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9] (may be
	forged))
	by mxout5.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP
	id l4Q463CH030162
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
	Fri, 25 May 2007 21:06:03 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.10.45] (c-67-166-149-71.hsd1.ca.comcast.net
	[67.166.149.71]) (authenticated authid=youshi10)
	by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW07.03) with ESMTP id
	l4Q462t9026252
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Fri, 25 May 2007 21:06:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4657B253.7070001@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:06:43 -0700
From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michiel Boland <Michiel.Boland@internl.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705252135230.2140@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705252135230.2140@neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 5.3.1.294258, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.1.298604,
	Antispam-Data: 2007.5.25.204734
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__CT 0, __CTE 0,
	__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
	__MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0'
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: gcc memory consumption: amd64 v i386
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 04:06:04 -0000

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.
> 
> So it appears that memory consumption of gcc on amd64 is significantly 
> greater than on i386. To test this further I created a very simple C 
> source file:-
> 
> void n0() { }
> void n1() { }
> void n2() { }
> void n3() { }
> ...
> void n49998() { }
> void n49999() { }
> 
> (i.e. a file with 50000 trivial function definitions.)
> 
> I compiled this file with several optimization levels, and then got the 
> following
> 
>              no optimization    -O
>   amd64        164M            445M
>   i386         142M            247M
> 
> I was wondering if anyone can make any sense out of this.
> 
> Cheers
> Michiel

What are your CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS? What -O did you build with?
-Garrett