Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 22:57:05 -0700 From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@westhill.cdrom.com> To: asami@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Satoshi Asami | =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?=) Cc: jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Sather-1.0.5 Message-ID: <15823.801295025@westhill.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 May 1995 21:49:03 PDT." <199505240449.VAA03650@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199505240449.VAA03650@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>, Satoshi Asami | =?I SO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQHUbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOCsbKEIgGyRCOC0bKEI=?= writes: >It seems like there is something wrong with the compilation order. >How that can happen, I have no idea. I'm not sure I follow your conclusions. I just started a build on westhill (a P5-90 with an obscene ammount of memory) and judging by the trace I saw, everything up to the cd Boot/cs.code; make CC='gcc' CFLAGS='-O2' CS='cs' was testing the machine configuration and calculating various bits and bobs to do with machine-dependant support. Then it gets into the guts of the compile. Sather is a resource pig. Even on an otherwise idle P5-90, it takes a long time to even generate the first stage test, and even longer to run it. I would not be surprised to see it fail on Julian's box, and it will certainly test the swap code on either thud or Julian's box as the test executable grows rather large. Also, Sather 1.0.6 is now out :-) Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15823.801295025>