From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 21 15:12:48 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 463A116A477; Mon, 21 May 2007 15:12:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1FF13C4DE; Mon, 21 May 2007 15:12:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B222095; Mon, 21 May 2007 17:12:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: 0.0/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on tim.des.no Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B25C2093; Mon, 21 May 2007 17:12:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 109A05766; Mon, 21 May 2007 17:12:43 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Michiel Boland References: <200705202254.45347.jonathan@fosburgh.org> <20070521011217.O44264@volatile.chemikals.org> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:12:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Michiel Boland's message of "Mon\, 21 May 2007 08\:26\:15 +0200 \(MEST\)") Message-ID: <863b1qrz11.fsf@dwp.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem compiling xorg-server{-snap} on recent -CURRENT 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: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:12:48 -0000 Michiel Boland writes: > My build of xorg-server died. The box ran out of swap space. I have > 512M RAM + 1G swap. Someone please tell me this is a glitch in the new > gcc. I don't want to add ram just to be able to compile a simple > program. :) The quick fix is to build at a lower optimization level. Advanced optimizations can be very memory-consuming, especially when compiling unusually large source files, or source files which contain unusually large functions. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no