From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3991 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 09:08:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3983 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2003 09:07:59 -0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030929090759.3982.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "fritz at reichmann dot tv" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030929084127.12440.fritz@reichmann.tv> References: <20030929084127.12440.fritz@reichmann.tv> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/12440] gcc 3.3.1 on i386 linux 2.4.22 crashes during compilation of quicktime4linux 2.0.0 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg02210.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12440 ------- Additional Comments From fritz at reichmann dot tv 2003-09-29 09:07 ------- Subject: Re: gcc 3.3.1 on i386 linux 2.4.22 crashes during compilation of quicktime4linux 2.0.0 That is well possible. I notice a general system slow down during compiler crash and a lot of harddisk activity which might be the swapping. The mashine is a 256MB laptop, btw. Leaving the bug as-is is fine to me. I turned off some of the the flags, and now it compiles fine. That is enough for me. Fritz Zitiere falk at debian dot org : > PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* > gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12440 > > > > ------- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2003-09-29 > 08:57 ------- > Out of memory problem. To me, it looks like the test case is simply too > large > to be compiled with full optimization and inlining. I don't think > there's much we > can do about that, but I'll leave it open for now, maybe somebody else > finds > something particularly memory-eating in this test case. > > > > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. > >