Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #81534

Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 11:28:19AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
>...
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 09:48:34AM +0000, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > Disabling debug symbols, enabling debug symbol zstd compression, using
> > split debug symbols (disabled BTF usage) should help here.
> 
> Okay, maybe more workarounds exist.  But none of them look really
> promising.
>...

gcc being a memory hog on for C++ code is a hard problem,
and debug symbols for C++ code can be a problem since
they might be > 1 GB for some binaries.

But gcc needing more than 4 GB for a small C kernel driver is not
a problem for the "Ability to further support 32bit architectures",
that's a gcc bug that should be reported upstream just like you wouldn't
suggest dropping amd64 if gcc would ICE on one kernel driver on that
architecture.

> Bastian

cu
Adrian

Back to linux.debian.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 10:50 +0100
  Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-11 10:50 +0100
    Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 11:50 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 12:50 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 18:40 +0100
          Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 19:50 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-01-11 17:10 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 17:20 +0100
          Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Alan Corey <alan01346@gmail.com> - 2024-01-12 19:30 +0100
            Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 04:50 +0100
              Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures YunQiang Su <wzssyqa@gmail.com> - 2024-01-13 04:50 +0100
                Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 14:20 +0100
                Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 17:00 +0100
                Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 20:20 +0100
                Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-13 21:10 +0100
              Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures rhys <rhys@neoquasar.org> - 2024-01-13 14:30 +0100
    Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-12 23:40 +0100
      Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Dimitri John Ledkov <dimitri.ledkov@canonical.com> - 2024-01-13 17:40 +0100
        Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 18:00 +0100
  Re: Ability to further support 32bit architectures Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-11 11:50 +0100
  gcc displaying bullshit allocation numbers? (was: Re: Ability to  further support 32bit architectures) Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2024-01-13 18:00 +0100

csiph-web