[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: GCC-9.0.1-RC-20190426 excessive memory usage with -ggdb
From:       Arvind Sankar <nivedita () alum ! mit ! edu>
Date:       2019-04-29 3:22:41
Message-ID: 20190429032241.GA11892 () rani ! riverdale ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 10:59:45PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> While building clang-8.0.0 or firefox-66.0.3 on a gentoo system (x86_64)
> gcc 9 release candidate runs out of memory with -O2 -ggdb. Gcc 8.3.0
> succeeds without issues. For clang there are about 5-6 compilations
> where the memory usage seems to grow without bound (I have 128Gb RAM +
> 128Gb swap and at least two of them were observed to reach 80+Gb each
> before getting killed).
> 
> For 8.3.0 nothing seems to reach more than single-digit Gb. Without the
> -ggdb switch gcc 9 also builds fine without excessive memory usage.
> 
> Files running out of memory:
> lib/Parse/ParseDeclCXX.cpp
> lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp
> lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocSizeofChecker.cpp
> lib/Format/FormatTokenLexer.cpp
> lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp
> 
> The assembler output for all but the MallocSizeChecker.cpp was still 0
> bytes when the compiler crashed, and it wasn't growing for that one.
> 
> Experimenting with different -g and -gdwarf levels instead of passing in
> -ggdb, -g2 -gdwarf-4 crashes, -g2 -gdwarf-3 crashes, -g1 -gdwarf-4
> crashes.
> 
> Both gcc 8.3.0 and 9 were bootstrapped using profiledbootstrap + \
> --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto at -O2. In addition my gcc 9 is currently built \
> with some additional optimization options: ira-loop-pressure, live-range-shrinkage, \
> tree-lrs. 
> I'll try bootstrapping 9 with regular -O2 without pgo/lto and see if
> that is better.
> 
> I realize this is a rather low-quality report :) but have little
> experience in trying to narrow this down esp with cmake being used in
> clang build, and throwing this out there in case someone else can take a
> quick look.
> 
> PS I am not on the list, please include me explicitly on replies.

I see this has been reported as Bug 90273 already.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]