Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
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.
I also only have 500mb on my building box...
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.
For me it's fine too... Gerald, what about using a bigger swap partition?
Marco
