Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On 2024-01-11 13:24, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:28:19AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > >... > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using > > > split debug symbols (disabled B

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:45 AM Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using > > split debug symbols (disabled BTF usage) should help here. > > Okay, maybe more workarounds e

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:28:19AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: >... > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using > > split debug symbols (disabled BTF usage) should help here. > > Okay, maybe more

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Bastian Blank
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:50:31AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > As it is now, we will not be able to provide a kernel for maybe all > > 32bit architectures for Trixie. > I don't think that this would be a reasonable decision. We're preparing to > switch > 32-bit architectures over t

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Bastian Blank
Hi On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using > split debug symbols (disabled BTF usage) should help here. Okay, maybe more workarounds exist. But none of them look really promising. > Separately,

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello Dimitri, On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 09:48 +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Separately, I wish we had cross-builders available, and cross-build > i386/armhf kernels from amd64/arm64 and thus having access to 64-bit > compiler. Helmut Grohne is actually working towards cross-builders and I thin

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Hi, On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 09:42, Bastian Blank wrote: > > Hi > > Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now > manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory: > | cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648 > bytes > > Right now both fail

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi! On Thu, 2024-01-11 at 10:25 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now > manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory: > > cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648 > > bytes > > Right now both fail o

Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Bastian Blank
Hi Linux 6.7 fails to build on at least i386 and armhf. Even it now manages to make the compiler fail to allocate memory: | cc1: out of memory allocating 135266296 bytes after a total of 235675648 bytes Right now both fail on the same driver, so a short team workaround would be to disable it. B