On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: > 78.67user 1.29system 1:20.01elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > and indeed, it does want a lot of memory - at peak some 550m. It'll > be smaller on a 32-bit box, but not much smaller.
Ouch. I can confirm that on a 32-bit box of mine it fails with about 500MB of main memory. On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Tom Tromey wrote: > I suppose with some awful build hacking we could split this .o into > multiple parts. I'm fine with the situation as it is, myself, but I > will do this if the consensus is that we should. Please, pleeease. This really hurts. No I can no longer build libgcj on my notebook and one or two older (but not that old) testers of mine. Ger ``begging'' ald
