From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11440 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2009 15:30:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11426 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Nov 2009 15:30:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bw0-f211.google.com (HELO mail-bw0-f211.google.com) (209.85.218.211) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:30:11 +0000 Received: by bwz3 with SMTP id 3so10427053bwz.16 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.49.68 with SMTP id u4mr1637525bkf.42.1257348608327; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:30:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 2sm2798825fks.18.2009.11.04.07.30.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:30:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4AF1A198.1090709@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:30:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Justin P. Mattock" CC: Dave Korn , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , David Rientjes Subject: Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0 References: <20091103222432.4a94bd8f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4AF17DED.7080808@gmail.com> <4AF198E1.9010303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4AF198E1.9010303@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 Justin P. Mattock wrote: > I can try, only issue I have is I don't > use a distro, so building anything requires me > to hand compile it Oh, ouch! > (hopefully not difficult for gdb). Indeed, hopefully not. > So give me some time on this and I'll see if I can get this up > and running, and add that patch to kernel then go from there. The one thing you can still try straight away for minimal effort is the -fmem-report option, but it's also the least informative... cheers, DaveK