This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Failure to build gcc-3.4 20030909 Java sourcefiles: @libgcj.sourcelist:gcj: Internal error: Killed (program jc1)
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>
- Cc: Mohan Embar <gnustuff at thisiscool dot com>, <tromey at redhat dot com>, <tcallawa at redhat dot com>, <c dot christian dot joensson at comhem dot se>, "'java'" <java at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:47:23 +0100
- Subject: Re: Failure to build gcc-3.4 20030909 Java sourcefiles: @libgcj.sourcelist:gcj: Internal error: Killed (program jc1)
- References: <16231.11278.740915.190848@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0309161135300.10748-100000@ops2.one-point.com>
Jeff Sturm writes:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Mohan Embar writes:
> > >
> > > >But, I see "big" memory usage, on this 128 MB old box (with 256 MB swap)...
> > > >Might the memory available be a problem?
> > >
> > > Andrew Haley noted that this uses a lot of memory - more than 256M.
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00627.html
> > >
> > > I'll defer any resolution of this to the higher-ups.
> >
> > I'm not sure that we can require huge memory to build libgcj.
>
> What if libgcj looks for --enable-intermodule, as gcc itself now does?
> I'd take that to mean "I have lots of memory, so build in a way that gives
> better optimizations and may build faster". Not unlike the current libgcj
> situation.
Sounds good. Trouble is, we are using this "compile everything at
once" to get around a libtool (and/or shell) bug, aren't we?
Andrew.