Re: armel *and* armhf qualification for Wheezy
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.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
Reply to: