Bug#917851: Failed build for seqan2 on i386

2021-02-12 Thread Aaron M. Ucko
Andreas Tille writes: > But other 32bit architectures like armel and armhf are passing[2]. So I > fail to see why exactly i386 is failing. Is this possibly an effect of > bug #917851? Probably not; dropping the bug to a Bcc. Experimentation in an i386 chroot reveals the problem to be

Bug#917851: Failed build for seqan2 on i386

2021-02-12 Thread Andrey Rahmatullin
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:21:38AM +0100, Hilmar Preuße wrote: > > > You can't adjust anything to get more than 4GB virtual memory on 32-bit > > > architectures. > > > You can try adjusting compilation/linking parameters to make the > > > compiler/linker use less memory though (not sure if the

Bug#917851: Failed build for seqan2 on i386

2021-02-12 Thread Hilmar Preuße
Am 12.02.2021 um 11:01 teilte Andreas Tille mit: On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:39:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: Hi, You can't adjust anything to get more than 4GB virtual memory on 32-bit architectures. You can try adjusting compilation/linking parameters to make the compiler/linker use

Bug#917851: Failed build for seqan2 on i386

2021-02-12 Thread Andreas Tille
Hi, On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:39:25PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > I wonder whether this could be simply solved by adjusting the hardware / > > emulation parameters of the according autobuilder. > > > > Am I missing something? > You can't adjust anything to get more than 4GB virtual