[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug ld/22831] ld causes massive thrashing if object files are not fully

From: lkcl at lkcl dot net
Subject: [Bug ld/22831] ld causes massive thrashing if object files are not fully memory-resident: new algorithm needed
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 22:13:30 +0000


--- Comment #24 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl dot net> ---
hiya nick, thanks for trying out the torture program.  basically the
parameters there generate a 6.1mb object file (with gcc 7.3), and 3000x
that equals an 18 gbytes executable.

so, it's possible to work out what needs to be done: increase the 2nd
or 3rd parameter directly proportionately so as to ensure that the object
file increases to where the available RAM will be exceeded.

regarding ld-gold:

so no, it doesn't work. mike hommey tried gnu gold for firefox
on debian 32-bit: everything he's tried has failed.  that leaves
cross-compiling using a 64-bit system as literally *the* only
option (which is completely unacceptable as a band-aid "solution")

regarding "-g -g -g": it increases the amount of debug information,
and consequently is a quick-hack way to increase the size of the
output binary.

regarding the evil idea of letting the limit be hit and weeding out
applications that try it, on the basis that it's pretty insane to
have such massive static executables: i really like it :)

... except... the first casualty is already being hit, and that's
*all* 32-bit hardware.  armhf, armel, i686, MIPS32 and a few more
besides.  all distros supporting 32-bit hardware are currently
going through hell, and/or are *DROPPING* 32-bit support entirely,
whilst 64-bit hardware continues to "accept" the insane inexorable
increase in static executable size.

so, perfectly good 32-bit hardware is being thrown into landfill
because there's absolutely no way they can get hold of a modern
distro that works on it...

... all because of this one bug that dates back to a short-sighted
decision from the late 1990s.

hence why i raised this to priority one critical level a couple of
days ago.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]