Launchpad has imported 14 comments from the remote bug at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40735.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-13T19:37:16+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: [forwarded from https://launchpad.net/bugs/398403] Building the attached file with gcc from the 4.4 branch with -g -fstack- protector -fPIE -Os, the build fails (killed by oom), last info seen is memory usage of about 1500mb. Building without -fPIE memory usage is limited around 700MB. Same behaviour for 4.3. With gcc-4.2 peak memory usage is with/without -fPIE below 400MB. Not checked on trunk, currently fails to build. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-13T19:37:36+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: Created attachment 18188 preprocessed source Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T09:20:58+00:00 Rguenth wrote: I cannot compile the attached testcase. gcc-4.2 -S -o /dev/null -g -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=c99 In file included from ../nih/test_alloc.h:32, from ../nih/test.h:36, from tests/test_node.c:23: ../nih/list.h:110: warning: declaration does not declare anything In file included from tests/test_node.c:40: ./parse.h:71: warning: declaration does not declare anything tests/test_node.c: In function ‘test_start_tag’: tests/test_node.c:211: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘node’ tests/test_node.c:251: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘node’ tests/test_node.c:297: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘data’ tests/test_node.c:297: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘data’ tests/test_node.c:365: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘node’ tests/test_node.c:422: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘data’ tests/test_node.c:422: error: ‘ParseStack’ has no member named ‘data’ tests/test_node.c: In function ‘test_object_functions’: tests/test_node.c:1256: error: ‘NihListEntry’ has no member named ‘str’ tests/test_node.c:1256: error: ‘NihListEntry’ has no member named ‘str’ ... Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T10:31:19+00:00 Matthias Klose wrote: my bad, should be -std=gnu99 instead: gcc-4.2 -S -o /dev/null -g -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/17 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T11:31:00+00:00 Rguenth wrote: This is likely caused by the DF merge. There are numerous bugs about this already and nothing really can be done here. Btw, my numbers are rguenther@murzim:/tmp> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.4 -S -o /dev/null -g -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 total: 744108 kB rguenther@murzim:/tmp> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.3 -S -o /dev/null -g -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 total: 719836 kB rguenther@murzim:/tmp> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.2 -S -o /dev/null -g -fstack-protector -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 total: 459757 kB Thus not 1.5GB but 750MB vs 450MB. rguenther@murzim:/tmp> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.4 -S -o /dev/null -fPIE -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 total: 743380 kB rguenther@murzim:/tmp> ~/bin/maxmem2.sh gcc-4.4 -S -o /dev/null -Os test_node.i -std=gnu99 total: 630756 kB the -fPIE effect itself is even less recognizable. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/18 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T23:07:07+00:00 Mikpe wrote: Seems heavily target-dependent. With 4.3.4 I see peak usage of 640M for i686, just under 1.2G for powerpc, and 1.6G for arm. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/19 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T23:10:36+00:00 Pinskia wrote: Hmm, maybe scheduling is causing it. Does -fno-schedule-insns -fno- schedule-insns2 cause the memory usage to go down? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-14T23:33:27+00:00 Mikpe wrote: (In reply to comment #6) > Hmm, maybe scheduling is causing it. Does -fno-schedule-insns > -fno-schedule-insns2 cause the memory usage to go down? Nope, memory usage patterns stayed the same. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-15T07:34:32+00:00 stevenb wrote: Does seem to be a real issue, somewhere. When trunk builds again, can you please give it a try too? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-15T09:44:41+00:00 Rguenth wrote: DF time on this testcase is already big, and the testcase has lots of function calls which would explain the difference between targets (DF needs to track all call-used/clobbered regs). Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/23 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-07-16T18:33:18+00:00 Mikpe wrote: More memory usage numbers on this test case: With 4.4.1-RC-20090715: i686 peaks at 616M, powerpc at 799M, and arm at 1211M. With 4.5.0-20090709: i686 peaks at 530M, powerpc at 707M, and arm at 933M. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/24 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2009-08-04T12:30:16+00:00 Rguenth wrote: GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2010-05-22T18:13:40+00:00 Rguenth wrote: GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/26 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2011-06-27T12:14:51+00:00 Rguenth wrote: 4.3 branch is being closed, moving to 4.4.7 target. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/comments/37 ** Changed in: gcc Importance: Unknown => Medium -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/398403 Title: [PR40735] gcc-4.4 fails to build upstart 0.6 on armel due to an internal compiler error To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc/+bug/398403/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
