Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy
[ dropped -release, added direct mail to Mike; dunno if you're
subscribed to d-arm... ]
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 02:54:47PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 09:18:38PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>>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.
>
>OK, cool. Building with ld and gold on a panda right now, to see how
>they compare.
Something I didn't expect - it seems the toolchain in sid armhf is
already configured to use gold by default using symlinks. I've done a
gold build, now running with ld.bfd for comparison.
Using gold, build time of ~8 hours.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"
Reply to: