Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-30 Thread Randy Barlow
Richard Fish wrote: > BTW, -O3 uses *a lot* more ram to compile compared to -O2. Indeed, > gcc will sometimes take 200-500MB of RAM to compile a single C++ > module. So combined with MAKEOPTS=-j2, and only 512MB of RAM total, > yeah, I think you ran out of memory. > > In fact, you may want to dr

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-30 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/30/06, Randy Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Fish wrote: > Can you retry with: > > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe" Awesome, this seems to have done the trick - thanks! BTW, -O3 uses *a lot* more ram to compile compared to -O2. Indeed, gcc will sometimes take 200-500MB of RAM

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-30 Thread Randy Barlow
Richard Fish wrote: > Can you retry with: > > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe" Awesome, this seems to have done the trick - thanks! R -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-29 Thread Alexander Skwar
Randy Barlow schrieb: Alexander Skwar wrote: > CHOST isn't that important at all. Much much more important are the CFLAGS, and here especially -march (or -mtune & -mcpu). If you're using a Pentium 3 and have done "emerge -e world" once, then all is fine. I haven't done the emerge -e thing, bu

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-29 Thread Randy Barlow
Alexander Skwar wrote: > CHOST isn't that important at all. Much much more important are the > CFLAGS, and here especially -march (or -mtune & -mcpu). If you're > using a Pentium 3 and have done "emerge -e world" once, then all is > fine. I haven't done the emerge -e thing, but shouldn't everythi

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-29 Thread Alexander Skwar
Randy Barlow schrieb: Richard Fish wrote: Can you retry with: CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe" [...] Also, why are you running an i386 CHOST? You should probably have used an i686 stage3 tarball... Hmm, somehow I must not have noticed that. You are certainly right though - it is possibl

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-28 Thread Randy Barlow
Richard Fish wrote: > Can you retry with: > > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe" I'm currently trying to upgrade to the newer version as per the recent gentoo security advisory concerning OO, but if that doesn't work, I'll give the less aggressive CFLAGS a try :) > Also, why are you running an i

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-28 Thread Richard Fish
On 7/28/06, Randy Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Enrico Weigelt wrote: > obviously an bug. Please file a report. Filed! It's at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142053 if anyone is interested in following it. Can you retry with: CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe" Also, why are you

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-28 Thread Randy Barlow
Enrico Weigelt wrote: > obviously an bug. Please file a report. Filed! It's at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142053 if anyone is interested in following it. R -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-28 Thread Enrico Weigelt
* Randy Barlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > Is this a bug that I should file, or a user error do you think? It > build for several hours before it gets to this point, but it will fail > consistently at this same point. Any ideas? obviously an bug. Please file a report. BTW: I didn't ever

[gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

2006-07-28 Thread Randy Barlow
Howdy. I added the gtk use flag to my system and did the emerge --update --deep --newuse world thing, and everything worked fine until it got to Open Office. The failure message is: g++: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus) Please submit a full bug report. See http://bugs.gentoo.org/> for in