From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 19 19:18:24 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A2C16A4CF; Thu, 19 May 2005 19:18:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (73.Red-213-97-200.pooles.rima-tde.net [213.97.200.73]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D207143D79; Thu, 19 May 2005 19:18:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org) Received: from scienide.energyhq.es.eu.org (scienide.energyhq.es.eu.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f01:198:210:4bff:fe3d:e256]) by mindfields.energyhq.es.eu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C9E283670B; Thu, 19 May 2005 21:18:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:17:04 +0200 From: Miguel Mendez To: Volker Stolz Message-Id: <20050519211704.1890f1fd.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <200505181613.j4IGDA0F024781@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200505181613.j4IGDA0F024781@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.9.10 (GTK+ 2.6.4; i386-portbld-freebsd5.4) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/81171: [Maintainer Update] emulators/xmame to 0.96 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 19:18:24 -0000 On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:13:10 GMT Volker Stolz wrote: > On 4.11: > [OSDEPEND] Compiling src/unix/blit/blit_16_24.c ... > In file included from src/unix/blit/blit_16_24.c:34: > src/unix/blit/advance/xq2x.h: In function `blit_lq2x_16_24': > src/unix/blit/advance/xq2x.h:222: virtual memory exhausted > cpp0: output pipe has been closed > gmake: *** [xmame.obj/unix.SDL/blit/blit_16_24.o] Error 1 Okay, this is interesting. 0.95 seems to build fine on the ports cluster, so bear with me for a second... flynn@scienide% diff -ruN xmame-0.95/src/unix/blit xmame-0.96/src/unix/ blit diff -ruN xmame-0.95/src/unix/blit/pixel_defs.h xmame-0.96/src/ unix/blit/pixel_defs.h --- xmame-0.95/src/unix/blit pixel_defs.h Tue Mar 29 06:20:18 2005 +++ xmame-0.96/src/unix/blit/ pixel_defs.h Wed May 4 00:26:28 2005 @@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ (((p) & 0x000000F8) >> 3)) #define RGB2YUV(r,g,b,y,u,v) \ - (y) = (( 9836*(r) + 19310*(g) + 3750*(b) ) >> 15); \ - (u) = (( -5527*(r) - 10921*(g) + 16448*(b) + 4194304) >> 15); \ - (v) = (( 16448*(r) - 13783*(g) - 2665*(b) + 4194304) >> 15) + (y) = (( 8453*(r) + 16594*(g) + 3223*(b) + 524288) >> 15); \ + (u) = (( -4878*(r) - 9578*(g) + 14456*(b) + 4210688) >> 15); \ + (v) = (( 14456*(r) - 12105*(g) - 2351*(b) + 4210688) >> 15) #ifdef LSB_FIRST #define Y1MASK 0x000000FF That's all that has changed from 0.95 to 0.96. Now, and this is the tricky part, gcc 2.95 seems to be incredibly inefficient when compiling the blit* bits (gcc 3.3 to a lesser extent too). The thing is, you can actually compile this on RELENG_4... if you have 1GiB of total memory. IIRC the cluster boxen have 1-2 GiBs, so that's why the problem went unnoticed so far. How much memory does the box where you tried have? So basically we have two options: Add a HEADS UP message informing about the huge memory requirements (why hasn't anybody complained yet?) or have this port build with gcc3.x, at least optionally. What do you think? I'm not even sure the xmame guys support using gcc < 3.x Cheers, -- Miguel Mendez http://www.energyhq.es.eu.org PGP Key: 0xDC8514F1