Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo User (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/)
-   -   GCC compilation disk space (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-user/172585-gcc-compilation-disk-space.html)

Willie Wong 10-08-2008 04:50 AM

GCC compilation disk space
 
Hi list:

Is it me or does gcc take more disk space to compile now?

I am trying to upgrade to gcc-4.3.2, and the compile stopped become
it ran out of disk space--after eating up ~700 MB in /var/tmp. I
seem to recall running into the same problem with the 4.3.1-r1 that
I have installed at the moment.

After cleaning out some cruft, I starting the compilation with 1.3
GB left on the partition, and so far it has used close to 800MB
one-hour into the emerge.

I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
box?

W
--
"Fucking shit, man, this is ridiculous."
"Ben...this is what Princeton is like:
(mimes delivering a beating with a large, blunt object.) Wham, wham, wham.
(mimes shaking hand.) Here's your degree. Except the 'Whams' take four years."
"Urgh..."
~DeathMech, Some Student. P-town PHY 205
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 670 days, 3:21

Heiko Wundram 10-08-2008 07:35 AM

GCC compilation disk space
 
Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
> I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
> wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
> box?

Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than <gcc-4.2
(IIRC 4.1.2 was the last gcc that I could compile in under 30 minutes; the
current one takes about 1.5 hours), and requires loads of disk.

--
Heiko Wundram

Alan McKinnon 10-08-2008 08:34 AM

GCC compilation disk space
 
On Wednesday 08 October 2008 09:35:25 Heiko Wundram wrote:
> Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
> > I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
> > wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
> > box?
>
> Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than
> <gcc-4.2 (IIRC 4.1.2 was the last gcc that I could compile in under 30
> minutes; the current one takes about 1.5 hours), and requires loads of
> disk.

gcc is getting like ooO :-)

On a 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo notebook with 4G RAM:

* sys-devel/gcc

Sun Aug 3 20:05:36 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.1-r1
merge time: 51 minutes and 7 seconds.

Mon Aug 4 21:54:42 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.1-r1
merge time: 42 minutes and 19 seconds.

Mon Oct 6 10:36:58 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.2
merge time: 1 hour, 26 minutes and 29 seconds.

The machine is being used while those compiles are running so it takes longer
than if left alone. But the relative times are still valid.

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Willie Wong 10-08-2008 02:13 PM

GCC compilation disk space
 
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 10:34:52AM +0200, Penguin Lover Alan McKinnon squawked:
> > Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than
> > <gcc-4.2 (IIRC 4.1.2 was the last gcc that I could compile in under 30
> > minutes; the current one takes about 1.5 hours), and requires loads of
> > disk.
>
> gcc is getting like ooO :-)
>

Any idea why?

Turns out that 4.3.2 required (on my laptop) just over 1 gig of space
to compile. It is alright now, but if it gets any higher, I don't
think my laptop with its puny 30 G harddrive will be able to handle
building gcc. Will we see something like gcc-bin?

W
--
In democracy it's your vote that counts.
In feudalism it's your Count that votes.
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 670 days, 12:48

"Paul Hartman" 10-08-2008 04:23 PM

GCC compilation disk space
 
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2008 09:35:25 Heiko Wundram wrote:
>> Am Wednesday 08 October 2008 06:50:47 schrieb Willie Wong:
>> > I don't remember gcc-3 being such a resource hog when building. So I
>> > wonder: is this the expected behaviour or is something wrong with my
>> > box?
>>
>> Expected behaviour. >=gcc-4.2 compiles about three times longer than
>> <gcc-4.2 (IIRC 4.1.2 was the last gcc that I could compile in under 30
>> minutes; the current one takes about 1.5 hours), and requires loads of
>> disk.
>
> gcc is getting like ooO :-)
>
> On a 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo notebook with 4G RAM:
>
> * sys-devel/gcc
>
> Sun Aug 3 20:05:36 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.1-r1
> merge time: 51 minutes and 7 seconds.
>
> Mon Aug 4 21:54:42 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.1-r1
> merge time: 42 minutes and 19 seconds.
>
> Mon Oct 6 10:36:58 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.2
> merge time: 1 hour, 26 minutes and 29 seconds.
>
> The machine is being used while those compiles are running so it takes longer
> than if left alone. But the relative times are still valid.

You can see the merge time getting longer with each version (I'm using
x86_64 so it may do some extra compiles for 32/64 stuff):

Wed Jun 20 17:24:25 2007 >>> sys-devel/gcc-3.3.6-r1
merge time: 6 minutes and 43 seconds.

Tue Jun 12 22:34:39 2007 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.1.2
merge time: 25 minutes and 25 seconds.

Fri Jul 20 21:15:31 2007 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.2.0
merge time: 36 minutes and 2 seconds.

Mon Jun 9 11:39:41 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.1
merge time: 48 minutes and 9 seconds.

Mon Oct 6 12:56:57 2008 >>> sys-devel/gcc-4.3.2
merge time: 1 hour, 7 minutes and 53 seconds.


It still has a way to go if it wants to beat OpenOffice (the king):

Tue Aug 19 20:47:26 2008 >>> app-office/openoffice-2.4.1
merge time: 2 hours, 43 minutes and 43 seconds.

Paul


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.