On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 12:55 -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> Anyway, I tried again, this time with the right file, and it took > Andrew> 78.67user 1.29system 1:20.01elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 0maxresident)k > Andrew> and indeed, it does want a lot of memory - at peak some 550m. It'll > Andrew> be smaller on a 32-bit box, but not much smaller. > > 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.
It does look like we are scaring away some people with the long build times and memory hungry build of libjava. I only started building libgcj again recently when I got a 3Ghz/64-bit/dual-core/2GB machine. And even on that box an compile/install/test cycle is not something I want to do more than once or twice a day. Having a 'light' build would be really good. Even if it is just a configure option that creates an unoptimized build. Has someone looked into why gcj takes so much memory/time to compile? And might recent changes in tree-ssa have increased memory and compile time? A frysk build for example is a lot (almost twice) as slow with svn trunk compared with 4.1.1. See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30588 Cheers, Mark
