Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!cd.amdahl.com!gab10
From: gab10@cd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: [386BSD] cc1 fatal error & more!
Message-ID: <b9Y.02kv21t701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 12 Sep 92 05:58:37 GMT
References: <6703@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> <1992Sep11.012623.14965@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <BuEAx4.JIq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Sep11.151505.24561@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 24
In article <1992Sep11.151505.24561@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs.weber.edu
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> In article <BuEAx4.JIq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
> rahnds@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dale Rahn) writes:
> >is it possible that the -O option of gcc uses too much memory
> >(i have 8M real, 16M swap but have X386 running)
> >or could there be a problem with gcc.
>
> It depends on which X you are running. Is your server binary the 11
> Meg or
> the 1 Meg flavor?
Woops, the code sizes of the two versions are roughly the same. The original
XFree86 release did not strip the server and was therefore 11 MB.
My understanding of Unix is that when a program is run, the symbols are not
loaded. Therefore, they are not contributing to memory/swap space usage.
(They do, however, consume a lot of floppies when transferring and disk space
when they get there :-))
--
Gary Browning | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
| great idea hits you, and just before you realize
| what is wrong with it.