Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:56:39PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 05:44:10PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >Hi Steve,
>
> Hey Mike,
>
> >On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 04:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >> In terms of raw buildd CPU right now, I think we're doing OK, but
> >> memory is more of a limiting factor with bigger C++ builds.
> >
> >As maintainer of such a package that pushes buildds limits, I have a
> >question.
> >Isn't memory really only a problem when linking C++ with big DWARF info?
>
> Honestly, I'm not 100% sure where all the memory is going. I do know
> that at current rates of usage increase we'll struggle to link some
> large programs (like browsers) on any 32-bit platform soon.
>
> >Would it be worth trying to link with gold for these?
>
> It might be, yes. I can try that with iceweasel on an imx53 or Panda
> with 1GB if you like. Are there any non-obvious patches needed to the
> packaging?
Apart from whatever is needed for gcc to use gold, there shouldn't be.
Mike
Reply to: