From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29467 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2015 08:21:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 29429 invoked by uid 48); 20 Feb 2015 08:21:47 -0000 From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug debug/58315] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:21:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: debug X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: memory-hog X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_gcctarget bug_status cf_known_to_work 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 X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02216.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D58315 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target| |x86_64-*-* Status|WAITING |NEW Known to work| |4.7.4 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, I still see >2GB of memory - just checked with ulimit -v 2000000 where= 4.7 succeeds but 4.8, 4.9 and 5 (r220758). Thus, re-confirmed. Without var-tracking GCC 5 tops out at ~400MB. I don't get the following note: b.ii: In function =E2=80=98bool {anonymous}::test03()=E2=80=99: b.ii:84991:1: note: variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without did you use some patched GCC with lower limits? >>From gcc-bugs-return-477884-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Feb 20 08:23:59 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31307 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2015 08:23:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31236 invoked by uid 48); 20 Feb 2015 08:23:56 -0000 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug sanitizer/63958] [5 Regression] bootstrap failure in the sanitizer libs on sparc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 08:23:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02217.txt.bz2 Content-length: 270 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- The r216224 change apparently applies cleanly to the current sources, does it fix all the sparc*-linux build issues? My SPARC box is long time dead...