On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2008 09:35:25 Heiko Wundram wrote:
>> Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
>> > I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
>> > wonder: is this the
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:34:52AM +0200, Penguin Lover Alan McKinnon squawked:
> > Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than
> > > minutes; the current one takes about 1.5 hours), and requires loads of
> > disk.
>
> gcc is getting like ooO :-)
>
Any idea why?
Turns
On Wednesday 08 October 2008 09:35:25 Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
> > I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
> > wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
> > box?
>
> Expected behav
Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
> I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
> wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
> box?
Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than
Hi list:
Is it me or does gcc take more disk space to compile now?
I am trying to upgrade to gcc-4.3.2, and the compile stopped become
it ran out of disk space--after eating up ~700 MB in /var/tmp. I
seem to recall running into the same problem with the 4.3.1-r1 that
I have installed a
5 matches
Mail list logo