Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 01:20:07 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 264949] lang/gcc11: Needs build time warning for /tmp consumption Message-ID: <bug-264949-29464-o3afjH9n4B@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-264949-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-264949-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D264949 --- Comment #13 from Lorenzo Salvadore <salvadore@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Mark Millard from comment #12) Thanks Mark, I agree that default options should not be based on what users choose as their options when they build their own ports. However I wonder - if it makes sense to select default options that do not work for many machines. Selecting such defaults will create issues for many users, and so= me of them will not be able to figure out how to solve the problem. Some will = ask for help and we risk to repeat many times the same anwser. - if it is correct to assume that the port build servers can build anything= . I think they can indeed compile GCC with LTO (maybe they have already done it= ), but how much time do they need? We have lots of ports, maybe having the ser= vers stuck on a port that could be compiled much faster with different default options is not a good idea, it could slow down the packages creation process too much. Do we have some tool to check how much time do port build servers= use on specific ports? I tried https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ , but I could not find anything. In the meantime, I tested building GCC 11 without any bootstrap option and = with STANDARD_BOOTSTRAP: I had very reasonable times in both cases. I still have= to verify how is GCC 11 with LTO_BOOTSTRAP in my case. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-264949-29464-o3afjH9n4B>