From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 12A9F385842C; Sun, 12 May 2024 10:19:48 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 12A9F385842C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1715509189; bh=2pyLwlw3t/WlDdfLxthYsNcYu5piQunJ26//8NgqGno=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=rQWLssx1NAxvfjzZ8myxZ+WP3CdYRZKmH6szeQfXlcmSQjQ93FQVbW1LX5mjabDwW jxYGVgj/2HpS//P4uKSKiuCKd/EO2pZwa0SFdZMaaAIN8FaeCgCiNDO1NveQmrxX9Y LsX6NFaw+Tw3eCdGQnpcr67T4VaF1AQkqImu+rwU= From: "brjd_epdjq36 at kygur dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/54179] please split insn-emit.c ! Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 10:19:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: bootstrap X-Bugzilla-Version: lto X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compile-time-hog, memory-hog X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: brjd_epdjq36 at kygur dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D54179 --- Comment #41 from Brjd --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #40) > That came up at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111600#c29. IMHO keeping the build at RAM<=3D1GB would be a good benchmark. Keeping the= se million-line files might be wrong.I succeed at building it only with -j1. If j>1, the build simply errors. I read comments that j>1 builds might be bad = to the drives too. If you know other possible ways to reduce RAM, please tell.=