Re: Re: GCC problem, take two

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 04:45:35PM +0100, T. Ribbrock wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:17:00AM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > gcc-*sparc32* is just an optimization. If something builds
> > when gcc-*sparc32* is installed and doesn't without that, it just means
> > you don't have enough memory, because the memory footprint of normal gcc
> > is between 1.5 and twice as big as the one of gcc-*sparc32* (it uses
> > long long in lots of places).
> 
> Er.... <scratches head> Does 512MB (U5) or 240MB (SS20) count as "low
> memory configuration" these days? :-}
> 
> On both machines, gcc filled real memory and swap (which on both
> machines is 2x main memory) before being killed because of "out of
> memory". Does that mean one shouldn't even attempt to use gcc-sparc64
> without having at least 1GB in the machine?

How much memory does gcc-*sparc32*'s cc1 use when compiling the same code?

	Jakub