From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sun Dec 1 21:39:21 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B461BA2FC for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:39:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (www.zefox.net [50.1.20.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "www.zefox.org", Issuer "www.zefox.org" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47R1pw04bPz4Jn6 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 21:39:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: from www.zefox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id xB1LdL25049435 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:39:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd@www.zefox.net) Received: (from fbsd@localhost) by www.zefox.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xB1LdK9b049434; Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:39:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fbsd) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:39:20 -0800 From: bob prohaska To: Mark Millard Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, bob prohaska Subject: Re: Reverting -current by date. Message-ID: <20191201213920.GA49395@www.zefox.net> References: <20191120233653.GA1475@www.zefox.net> <20191121031141.GB1837@www.zefox.net> <20191121175817.GA5375@www.zefox.net> <20191121190903.GB5375@www.zefox.net> <20191126010310.GA26370@www.zefox.net> <254A5077-DE9E-4B6A-9A4D-D9FA2F858F54@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <254A5077-DE9E-4B6A-9A4D-D9FA2F858F54@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47R1pw04bPz4Jn6 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of fbsd@www.zefox.net has no SPF policy when checking 50.1.20.27) smtp.mailfrom=fbsd@www.zefox.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.23 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.88)[-0.875,0]; WWW_DOT_DOMAIN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.07)[ip: (0.30), ipnet: 50.1.16.0/20(0.15), asn: 7065(-0.04), country: US(-0.05)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[zefox.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.87)[-0.869,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7065, ipnet:50.1.16.0/20, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_WWW(0.50)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:39:21 -0000 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