From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34702 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrQqc-0005GF-58 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:10:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrQqa-0001Gt-8T for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:10:21 -0500 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:55520) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrQqZ-0001Ge-W0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:10:20 -0500 Received: by eyx24 with SMTP id 24so161364eyx.33 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:10:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4D621DE8.60506@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:10:16 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20110220165637.GK18619@volta.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: qemu-0.14.0 doesn't compile on ppc32 List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: nello martuscielli , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Aurelien Jarno On 02/20/2011 06:32 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 20 February 2011 16:56, Aurelien Jarno wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 03:01:12PM +0100, nello martuscielli wrote: >>> CC x86_64-softmmu/translate.o >>> {standard input}: Assembler messages: >>> {standard input}:11903788: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; >>> newline inserted >>> gcc: Internal error: Killed (program cc1) > >> It is most likely a compiler/setup issue. My guess your machine got out >> of memory, and the OOM killer killed cc1. Try adding more memory and/or >> swap, it should work. > > Some of qemu's code does seem to trigger rather excessive memory > use by gcc; for instance we've had problems with memory usage > building for ARM with gcc of target-sparc/translate.c wanting > gigabytes of RAM with some compiler flags: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/gcc-linaro/+bug/714921 > > I suspect it's all those large switch statements... It's on my todo list to report it to GCC, since this memory-hog behavior is a GCC regression. Paolo