Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:39:20 -0800 From: bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska <fbsd@www.zefox.net> Subject: Re: Reverting -current by date. Message-ID: <20191201213920.GA49395@www.zefox.net> In-Reply-To: <254A5077-DE9E-4B6A-9A4D-D9FA2F858F54@yahoo.com> References: <20191120233653.GA1475@www.zefox.net> <CF0E4D8C-835C-42A7-B778-7899E779FB19@yahoo.com> <20191121031141.GB1837@www.zefox.net> <E752E69D-814C-4182-A2AC-EA15FF69A7B6@yahoo.com> <20191121175817.GA5375@www.zefox.net> <DC498AB2-BCAC-4133-9789-7DFCCF7F928F@yahoo.com> <20191121190903.GB5375@www.zefox.net> <EAC55963-5220-4EA4-87F8-4752BF89CB4F@yahoo.com> <20191126010310.GA26370@www.zefox.net> <254A5077-DE9E-4B6A-9A4D-D9FA2F858F54@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 05:52:02PM -0800, Mark Millard wrote: > > > > FYI, one contributor to from-scratch build times might be > the update to llvm 9: > > QUOTE > Revision 353358 - (view) (download) (annotate) - [select for diffs] > Modified Wed Oct 9 17:06:56 2019 UTC (6 weeks, 5 days ago) by dim > File length: 12392 byte(s) > Diff to previous 353274 > Merge llvm, clang, compiler-rt, libc++, libunwind, lld, lldb and openmp > 9.0.0 final release > r372316 > . > > Release notes for llvm, clang, lld and libc++ 9.0.0 are available here: > > > https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/tools/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/tools/lld/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/projects/libcxx/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > > > PR: 240629 > MFC after: 1 month > END QUOTE > > I do not know if you do anything to limit what is built relative to > llvm or not. (I do not remember the defaults or the minimums.) > > Are your from-scratch rebuilds building both a bootstrap llvm9 and > the normal llvm9? Or is the existing llvm9 used instead of making > a bootstrap build of llvm9? > > Any llvm8->llvm9 transition will get the bootstrap build of llvm9, > which then will be used for the later stages. > I think the transition is complete at this point, with clang60 through clang80 resident in /usr/local/bin and clang9 being default. Is there any reason to think clang9 is substantially slower or more resource-intensive than clang 8? if so, that, that would at least contribute to the difficulties I'm observing (along with tired flash devices). Last time the machine successfully compiled www/chromium it took about 3.5 GB of swap at peak. Recent attempts, even with -j2, are approaching 4 GB and failing with random kernel panics. Thanks very much for reading! bob prohaska
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191201213920.GA49395>