From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 129762 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2019 12:02:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dwz-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: dwz-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 129690 invoked by uid 48); 28 Nov 2019 12:02:34 -0000 From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: dwz@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug default/25024] dwz: Multifile temporary files too large Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: dwz X-Bugzilla-Component: default X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: nobody at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_severity Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2019-q4/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D25024 Tom de Vries changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |enhancement --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- There are a few things to mention here: - there is no clear reason why this should be an error, we could also warn about not being able to add to the temporary files, and continue the multifile optimization - it should be possible to continue writing at the point we run into an err= or now, by switching to 64-bit dwarf, but reading 64-bit dwarf is currently = not supported. - the setup of collecting all the info for the multifile optimization into one temporary file per section is very convenient because it follows the = way single-file optimization is done closely. But things don't have to be se= tup like that. We could also have one temporary file per section per input fi= le, which would fix the limitation we're running into here. Of course we'd spent more effort juggling things around once we start reading in those files, but there is also the possibility that we'd be able to manage memory in a more fine-grained way, which could possibly reduce peak memory usage. For now, I'm classifying this as enhancement, given that we're running into= an implementation-defined limitation, which dwz is correctly reporting. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.