Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures
On 2024-01-11 13:24, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:28:19AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >...
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using
> > > split debug symbols (disabled BTF usage) should help here.
> >
> > Okay, maybe more workarounds exist. But none of them look really
> > promising.
> >...
>
> gcc being a memory hog on for C++ code is a hard problem,
> and debug symbols for C++ code can be a problem since
> they might be > 1 GB for some binaries.
>
> But gcc needing more than 4 GB for a small C kernel driver is not
> a problem for the "Ability to further support 32bit architectures",
> that's a gcc bug that should be reported upstream just like you wouldn't
> suggest dropping amd64 if gcc would ICE on one kernel driver on that
> architecture.
Or maybe just blame the kernel instead:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whkGHOmpM_1kNgzX1UDAs10+UuALcpeEWN29EE0m-my=w@mail.gmail.com/
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net http://aurel32.net
Reply to: