Hello, Daniel!

On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:13:41PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 9 is SIGKILL.  That suggests the problem has nothing to do with your
> compiler, and everything to do with your system resource limits, or
> kernel.

Ah, yes, this was OOM; thank you! 256MB RAM + 128MB swap had worked for
gdb 6.0 compilation, that is why I didn't think about this. Adding 256MB
swap fixed the problem, albeit with intensive thrashing. What in this
file makes gcc consume 350MB of virtual memory 8) , according to top? Is
it an essential part of gdb? In other words, can I build a "minimal" gdb
without it? I'm going to compile various versions for testing, and I
wanted to apply patches on clean trees.

With kind regards,
Baurjan.