Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-13 Thread Aurelien Jarno
c being a memory hog on for C++ code is a hard problem, > > and debug symbols for C++ code can be a problem since > > they might be > 1 GB for some binaries. > > > > But gcc needing more than 4 GB for a small C kernel driver is not > > a problem for the "

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-13 Thread Bastian Blank
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 04:31:35PM +, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, 22:36 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 (d

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-13 Thread Dimitri John Ledkov
Heya, On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, 22:36 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. > > Disabling debug symbols does

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread Hank Barta
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 5:07 PM Alan Corey wrote: > > So, can you set an RPI4 to 32 bit for even more speed? > My Pi4 config.txt (Debian Bookworm) says > > # Switch the CPU from ARMv7 into ARMv8 (aarch64) mode > arm_64bit=1 > You would have to try it to see if it is faster for your workload. I su

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread Alan Corey
...@gmail.com>; > > debian-ker...@lists.debian.org > > <mailto:debian-ker...@lists.debian.org>; debian-arm@lists.debian.org > > <mailto:debian-arm@lists.debian.org>; debian-de...@lists.debian.org > > <mailto:debian-de...@lists.debian.org>; > >

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread Bastian Blank
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. Disabling debug symbols does not help. Bastian > Sent from Ubuntu Pro > https://ubuntu.com/pr

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread gene heskett
bian-de...@lists.debian.org <mailto:debian-de...@lists.debian.org>; debian-rele...@lists.debian.org <mailto:debian-rele...@lists.debian.org> *Subject:* Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures mailto:r...@neoquasar.org>> 于2024年1月12日周五 23:59写道: > >

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread Alan Corey
Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2024 10:11 > *To:* r...@neoquasar.org > *Cc:* noloa...@gmail.com; debian-ker...@lists.debian.org; > debian-arm@lists.debian.org; debian-de...@lists.debian.org; > debian-rele...@lists.debian.org > *Subject:* Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread rhys
Subject: Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures 于2024年1月12日周五 23:59写道: > > Keeping in mind that I am new to this arena... > > I have some Intel systems - both 64-bit and 32-bit - that I might be able to > use as build platforms. > I guess all of your hardwares ar

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread rhys
an to make them EFFECTIVE. --J Sent from my mobile device. From: Jeffrey Walton Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2024 09:48 To: debian-ker...@lists.debian.org; debian-arm@lists.debian.org; debian-de...@lists.debian.org; debian-rele...@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Abi

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-12 Thread YunQiang Su
于2024年1月12日周五 23:59写道: > > Keeping in mind that I am new to this arena... > > I have some Intel systems - both 64-bit and 32-bit - that I might be able to > use as build platforms. > I guess all of your hardwares are 64bit. You setup different OS on them. > What does the Debian team need from m

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

2024-01-11 Thread Aurelien Jarno
oblem since > they might be > 1 GB for some binaries. > > But gcc needing more than 4 GB for a small C kernel driver is not > a problem for the "Ability to further support 32bit architectures", > that's a gcc bug that should be reported upstream just like you wouldn

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
C kernel driver is not a problem for the "Ability to further support 32bit architectures", that's a gcc bug that should be reported upstream just like you wouldn't suggest dropping amd64 if gcc would ICE on one kernel driver on that architecture. > Bastian cu Adrian

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