This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

From: Marco Trudel <mtrudel at gmx dot ch>
To: tromey at redhat dot com
Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:12:42 +0100
Subject: Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine
References: <45C080F8.10400@redhat.com> <m3wt33rsqi.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Tom Tromey wrote:

"Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:


Benjamin> but I am
Benjamin> somewhat concerned with the response of the java maintainers (and
Benjamin> others) that it's OK to require >512MB to bootstrap gcc with java, or
Benjamin> that make times "WORKSFORME."

My proposal was more that, if it "WORKSFORUS", then I wouldn't bother
hacking on the build.  Build hacking is unpleasant and I am somewhat
motivated to avoid it.

Anyhow, I'm testing a patch for this case.  And, this will make it a
bit simpler to split other objects should it be needed.

Aren't you here solving the wrong problem? The problem that is caused by the real problem? If it takes about 30 to 40min to build this html/parser.o and gnu-xml.o needs about 1 or 2 minutes but is - last time I took a look - a lot bigger than the html parser, shouldn't then be investigated why this html parser is such a hard thing? Otherwise there might just come another object after some changes with the same problem...

Marco

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine
  - From: Tom Tromey

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]