From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Jan 22 17:32:23 2008 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:41:21 -0500 (EST) From: Keith Scroggins To: MiKRO Cc: mint Subject: Re: [MiNT] gcc 4.2.2 compile error In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <477CCF51.8030708@freesbee.fr> <200801032257.16394.oak@helsinkinet.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: kws@radix.net Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Level: Status: X-Status: X-Keywords: > To summarize it, I've tried that stack command, it didn't help. Btw > strange thing -- is there any limit for the stack? I set 4 MB for that > xgcc and I've got memory violation as soon as some compilation > involved (configure script "checking if gcc works"), same for 512K > (and this even occured in gcc 2.95!). So the safest boundary seems to > be 256K?. > Hello Miro, This might be a little late, but I usually am setting the stack to around 960k, and hitting every executable build at that time, even though I think the only ones that need it are cc1 and xgcc, and you also need to watch to make sure GCC does not try to recreate those binaries, which then invalidates your stack fixing. I had not had any luck building a native GCC 4.2.2 yet, but that was before the newer MiNTlib patches. I'll try it again (or test out your patches!) after Jan 15, which is a ScummVM release deadline for me. Keith