This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 12:55 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Andrew> Anyway, I tried again, this time with the right file, and it took
> Andrew> 78.67user 1.29system 1:20.01elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> Andrew> and indeed, it does want a lot of memory - at peak some 550m. It'll
> Andrew> be smaller on a 32-bit box, but not much smaller.
>
> I suppose with some awful build hacking we could split this .o into
> multiple parts. I'm fine with the situation as it is, myself, but I
> will do this if the consensus is that we should.
It does look like we are scaring away some people with the long build
times and memory hungry build of libjava. I only started building libgcj
again recently when I got a 3Ghz/64-bit/dual-core/2GB machine. And even
on that box an compile/install/test cycle is not something I want to do
more than once or twice a day.
Having a 'light' build would be really good. Even if it is just a
configure option that creates an unoptimized build.
Has someone looked into why gcj takes so much memory/time to compile?
And might recent changes in tree-ssa have increased memory and compile
time? A frysk build for example is a lot (almost twice) as slow with svn
trunk compared with 4.1.1. See also:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30588
Cheers,
Mark