On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> What can we do to improve this? I'm not really happy to have LLVM
> ebuild analyze CFLAGS to set proper space constraints. Maybe we should
> make check-reqs-r1 automatically bump the constraints by some
> statistical multiplier when it detec
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:47:10 +0100
Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
> wrote:
>
> > I thought -O0 was generally discouraged, even for debugging?!
>
>
> As Michał said, it all depends on what you want to debug. I would say that
> for 90% of issues you
Unlikely you screwed up, -O0 makes bigger code than -O2 almost in every
case; then -g annotates it. I'm expecting -ggdb to take some few GBs more.
It'll be the same if not worse with almost all software, -g3 would make it
even worse.
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http:/
Dnia 2013-08-02, o godz. 02:07:18
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> napisał(a):
> Michał Górny posted on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > LLVM has peek build space consumption around:
> >
> > - 400-550M without clang (depending on targets),
> > - 950-1200M with clang,
> > - 16G wi
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200 as excerpted:
> LLVM has peek build space consumption around:
>
> - 400-550M without clang (depending on targets),
> - 950-1200M with clang,
> - 16G with clang & USE=debug (assertions, checks).
Ouch!
Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't reali
