[gentoo-dev] Re: check-reqs* vs CFLAGS=-g

2013-08-05 Thread Ryan Hill
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:47:10 +0100 Diego Elio Pettenò flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.orgwrote: I thought -O0 was generally discouraged, even for debugging?! As Michał said, it all depends on what you want to debug. I

[gentoo-dev] Re: check-reqs* vs CFLAGS=-g

2013-08-05 Thread Ryan Hill
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200 Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote: What can we do to improve this? I'm not really happy to have LLVM ebuild analyze CFLAGS to set proper space constraints. Maybe we should make check-reqs-r1 automatically bump the constraints by some statistical multiplier

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: check-reqs* vs CFLAGS=-g

2013-08-02 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 2013-08-02, o godz. 02:07:18 Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net napisał(a): Michał Górny posted on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200 as excerpted: LLVM has peek build space consumption around: - 400-550M without clang (depending on targets), - 950-1200M with clang, - 16G with clang

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: check-reqs* vs CFLAGS=-g

2013-08-02 Thread Diego Elio Pettenò
Unlikely you screwed up, -O0 makes bigger code than -O2 almost in every case; then -g annotates it. I'm expecting -ggdb to take some few GBs more. It'll be the same if not worse with almost all software, -g3 would make it even worse. Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu —

[gentoo-dev] Re: check-reqs* vs CFLAGS=-g

2013-08-01 Thread Duncan
Michał Górny posted on Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:33:48 +0200 as excerpted: LLVM has peek build space consumption around: - 400-550M without clang (depending on targets), - 950-1200M with clang, - 16G with clang USE=debug (assertions, checks). Ouch! Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't realize