19:06 < lool> cjwatson: I built with -O0 -fno-common -fno-foo ... disabling all
enabled opts until the output would only mention one enabled opt
which is the reverse of another one; the build still takes
hundreds of megs of RAM and I stop it at around 80 % RAM after 3
minutes
19:07 < lool> I guess I should have tried with an unpatched gcc though
...
19:08 < lool> Oh it passed
19:08 < lool> after 4 minutes or so
19:09 < lool> but using a big load of RAM
...
19:12 < lool> doko: I don't quite know how to attack the upstart build slowness
issue
19:12 < lool> Basically, we're seeing underperformance, but it's hard to
qualify how fast gcc should run, or how much memory it's allowed
to use
19:12 < lool> doko: Do you think some patches we're using could be destroying
performance?
19:12 < lool> e.g. that 64 bytes align patch
19:13 < lool> That's a binutils patch, but I can see how it could lead to much
larger RAM usage
19:13 < doko> lool: where is the time used, in cc1, or as?
19:13 < lool> doko: cc1
19:14 < doko> well, then it's not the align patch, and we are pretty much using
upstream, no fancy patches on our own
19:15 < lool> doko: Can I just report it upsteam opening a new bug saying that
it uses a load of RAM/CPU to build a file?
19:15 < lool> ie Is that an acceptable bug?
19:16 < doko> lool: sure, better check it with 4.3 (or older) as well to see if
it's a regression or not.
...
19:23 < lool> doko: It's about the same performance with gcc-4.3
--
gcc-4.4 fails to build upstart 0.6 on armel due to an internal compiler error
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/398403
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
