[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64
From: |
Duncan |
Subject: |
[Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64 |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Apr 2006 07:52:14 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) |
Thomas Stein posted <address@hidden>, excerpted
below, on Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:33:48 +0200:
> On Thursday 13 April 2006 18:39, Thomas Fricke wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > This is the point where the compilation stops:
>> >
>> > ----
>> > then mv -f ".deps/scorefile-test.Tpo" ".deps/scorefile-test.Po"; else
>> > rm -f ".deps/scorefile-test.Tpo"; exit 1; fi
>> > ----
>>
>> I have compiled pan-0.92 without portage. At this point the compile
>> process needs up to 98% of memory (1GB), but then - after some time and
>> swapping (5min) - it compiles to the end. My basic system is stable amd64.
>
> Interesting. Thanks for the info Thomas. Well ok, there has to be something
> wrong then at this point. I will try anyway this way. But for now i have to
> leave this conservation for holidays.
Well, when you get back... I just tried compiling it with gcc-3.4.6, and
yes, it /does/ use that memory. I normally have my ulimit -v (virtual
memory limit, total a single process is allowed to use, including swap)
set to a gigabyte (1048576 KB), and that errored out. It needs more than
that much memory including swap, here, altho I am running CXXFLAGS a bit
different than most.
It was compiling the scorefile stuff when it happened, too. The only
other thing I know that busts my ulimit is kmail. I have to bump my
ulimit to compile it, too. C++ compiling definitely requires more memory,
and both these apps appear to be at the high end of the requirement scale
for C++.
I didn't run into the issue with the same ulimits with gcc-4.1.0 (with
pan 0.9x, kmail still exhibits the issue), so obviously, 3.4.6 is
requiring more memory than 4.1.0 does.
I'll bump the ulimit in tenths of a gig at a time, and see what happens,
posting back when I get some numbers.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html
- [Pan-users] 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/12
- [Pan-users] Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/12
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/12
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/12
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/13
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/13
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/13
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/13
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Fricke, 2006/04/13
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/13
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64,
Duncan <=
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/14
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/18
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/18
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/18
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Thomas Stein, 2006/04/24
- [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Duncan, 2006/04/24
- Re: [Pan-users] Re: Re: Re: Re: 0.92 amd64, Per Hedeland, 2006/04/24