On 02/02/18 10:35, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:21:44 +0000 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 27/01/18 19:13, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:12:14 +0100 Gianfranco Costamagna 
>>> <locutusofb...@debian.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 14:30:08 +0000 James Cowgill <jcowg...@debian.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/01/18 14:26, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a way for me to run your testcase without ghc-stage1 (which
>>>>>>> would require building ghc)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, however I attached ghc-stage1 binaries to the report
>>>>>
>>>>> The "ghc-stage1" you attached is a shell script which execs some other
>>>>> binary which you didn't attach.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this is true, I hope you can get from my home in eller.debian.org :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hello, ping?
>>> (this is the last blocker for ghc 8.2 in unstable, unfortunately somebody 
>>> would like to remove from mips instead of delaying the transition any 
>>> longer)
>>
>> Sorry I got a bit sidetracked working on other things.
>>
>> I have a slightly reduced testcase, but it still requires about 50M of
>> objects so I'm working on reducing it even more.
> 
> Cool, thanks.
> 
>> I did a test compile of ghc using the bfd linker and it does build (pass
>> --disable-ld-override to ghc configure). This might be usable as a
>> workaround if you don't want to delay the transition. I expect this will
>> make ghc / haskell build times increase a lot on mips* though.
> 
> Did you try that on mips64el? Gianfranco tried on mips or mipsel IIRC and it 
> was
> running out of memory. Perhaps reducing the optimization levels or the 
> debugging
> symbols could help...

Yes I only tried it on mips64el.

James

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to