[blfs-dev] #3982: Firefox-23.0.1/Xulrunner-23.0.1

Fernando de Oliveira famobr at yahoo.com.br
Mon Aug 19 06:02:17 PDT 2013


Em 18-08-2013 22:13, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu:
> Em 18-08-2013 17:46, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
>> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>> Em 18-08-2013 13:59, Ken Moffat escreveu:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 09:06:36AM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>>>> BLFS Trac wrote:
>>>>>> #3982: Firefox-23.0.1/Xulrunner-23.0.1
>>>>>
>>>>>>    * resolution:   => fixed
>>>>>> Comment:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Fixed at revision 11650.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Xulrunner, the first I built, needed over 3.3GB of memory, and ld died.
>>>>>>    Had to increase memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Memory or disk space?  I wouldn't think anything needs 3.3G RAM to compile.
>>>>>
>>>>>     -- Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>   From my experience with 23.0, memory.  At the end of the build it
>>>> seems to link everything together and goes into swap on my boxes
>>>> with only 4GB of RAM (running icewm, a handful of urxvt terms).
>>>>
>>>> ĸen
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, ĸen, for confirming. This was a long standing issue, never
>>> remeber to ask/inform. And it seems that my interpretation was not so wrong.
>>>
>>> Command attached before was broken incomplete. I hope you all do not
>>> mind, but I am sending another one, from a build log, deleted previous
>>> and following lines, leaving some which seemed relevant.
>>
>> This all seems like it's consistent.  Perhaps a note about the RAM/swap 
>> would be appropriate.
> 
> OK. I will do it.

I have a problem with this:

[attached pdf, comparing six systems]

I have omitted the system having 16GB of RAM.

Have rebuilt yesterday, to confirm numbers, with the developing system
with increased memory. It seems total memory size was about the value
used when linking libxul, when I read while building yesterday, so it
failed for a small amount, 200MB was already used, before build started.

But why the i686 systems do not fail? Without much experience with
x86_64, builds, may I assume that binaries are larger for this architecture?

Is it reasonable to insert a note for xulrunner's page mentioning it is
only with x86_64 architecture that the problem occurs?

-- 
[]s,
Fernando
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: xulrunner-23.0.1-VM-memory-comparison-only-table.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/attachments/20130819/da2fa321/attachment.pdf>


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list