Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22831#c25
steve, mike, any news on the use of the options recommended in comment
#25 ? this for native 32-bit builds.
Ian Lance Taylor 2019-01-09 23:48:45 UTC
When using gold the key options are --no-mmap-output-file
--no-map-whole-files --no-keep-files-mapped. Can you confirm that
those options--all of them together--were tried with gold?
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 8:18 PM Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> 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.
>
> Mike
Reply to: