From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 26 14:19:40 2007 Return-Path: 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 459EA16A400 for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 14:19:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michiel@boland.org) Received: from neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net (neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net [217.149.193.38]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D878C13C43E for ; Sat, 26 May 2007 14:19:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michiel@boland.org) Received: from neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net by neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net via neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net [217.149.193.38] with ESMTP id l4QEJcm2015502 (8.13.4/1.4); Sat, 26 May 2007 16:19:38 +0200 (MEST) Received: from localhost by neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net via mboland@localhost with ESMTP id l4QEJcjF015498 (8.13.4/2.02); Sat, 26 May 2007 16:19:38 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: neerbosch.nijmegen.internl.net: mboland owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 16:19:38 +0200 (MEST) From: Michiel Boland To: Claus Guttesen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 14:19:40 -0000 >> 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. If every new gcc version means I have to readjust the amount of memory in my box, I guess I'll pass the next time a gcc upgrade happens. This is not what I would call progress. Anyway, I will get back under my stone now. :)