Hello.
Just small note, link to Nathan's patch that has been recently accepted:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-08/msg00878.html
Which provides info about process termination.
Martin
I've updated this bug [Bug 81818 - aarch64 uses 2-3x memory and 2x time
of arm at -Os, -O2, -O3] with more info.
It looks to be that on ARM systems with limited RAM optimizations are
being skipped, but not on AARCH64.
Is there a way I can check this is true?
I checked all the optimizations e
On 10/08/17 10:22, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
If you think gcc is using an unreasonable amount of memory for a
particular bit of code then please file a bug report, with pre-processed
source code (don't assume that because the sources are part of gcc we
can reproduce your setup). You should
On Aug 11 2017, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> Meanwhile, I'm testing memory usage and compile times with my code on gcc
> 5.4.0, 6.4.0, 7.2.0 and 8.0.0, across x64, arm and aarch64.
Make sure you compile them all with the same checking options.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG
* Pedro Alves:
>> The siginfo_t information should indicate that the signal originated
>> from the kernel.
>
> OOC, where? While a parent process can use "waitid" to get
> a siginfo_t with information about the child exit, that siginfo_t
> is not the same siginfo_t a signal handler would get as
On 11/08/17 02:09, Pedro Alves wrote:
Meanwhile, maybe just having the driver check for SIGKILL and
enumerate likely causes would be better than the status quo.
Pedro Alves
I agree, having some indication it MIGHT be out of memory would stop
people wasting a lot of time, and avoid spurious bu
On 08/10/2017 10:22 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andrew Haley:
>
>> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
>>> just an ICE.
>>
>> There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit any
>> message before w
* Andrew Haley:
> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
>> just an ICE.
>
> There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit any
> message before we die. (killed) tells you that we were killed, but
> we
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 09 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
just an ICE.
>>>
>>>
On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64.
>
> The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to build
> on aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have finally
> traced this to the system runnin
On Aug 09 2017, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
>>> just an ICE.
>>
>> There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
>> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
>> just an ICE.
>
> There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit any
> message before we die. (killed) tell
On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64.
The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to
build on aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have
finally traced this to the system running out
On 09/08/17 14:05, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> 2) It would be nice to see some sort of out of memory error, rather than
> just an ICE.
There's nothing we can do: the kernel killed us. We can't emit any
message before we die. (killed) tells you that we were killed, but
we don't know who done it.
--
On 2017.08.09 at 14:05 +0100, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64.
>
> The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to build on
> aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have finally traced this
> to the sy
I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64.
The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to build
on aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have finally
traced this to the system running out of memory. I guess a recent kernel
update
16 matches
Mail list logo
