From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 451 invoked by alias); 16 May 2005 18:48:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 32751 invoked from network); 16 May 2005 18:47:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 May 2005 18:47:56 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j4GIklVs004672; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:47 -0400 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4GIkfO08279; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:41 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j4GIkYv17712; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:34 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4GIkVtU024542; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:31 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j4GIkPHi024539; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 19:09:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200505161846.j4GIkPHi024539@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org CC: s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl, scott.ladd@coyotegulch.com, dewar@adacore.com, peter@the-baradas.com, Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM, hjl@lucon.org, aph@redhat.com, aoliva@redhat.com, dje@watson.ibm.com, schwab@suse.de, pinskia@physics.uc.edu, pkoning@equallogic.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, matt@3am-software.com, cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk In-reply-to: <1116258837.13457.68.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> (message from Richard Earnshaw on Mon, 16 May 2005 16:53:57 +0100) Subject: Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only? References: <17009.2368.986169.753001@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <1116249726.13457.49.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <4288B3FA.40706@coyotegulch.com> <200505161717.31407.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <1116258837.13457.68.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00819.txt.bz2 > No company is going to spend money on fixing this until we adjust > our (collective) attitude and take this seriously. We could call ulimit() to force everyone to have less available RAM. Connect it with one of the maintainer flags, like enable-checking or something, so it doesn't penalize distributors.