Firefox so bloated the linker fails

[blane]

This is kind of amusing.

"After some investigation we determined that the problem seems to be that
the linker is running out of virtual address space during the optimization
phase. This is not the first time we've run into this problem (e.g. Bug 543034).
A couple years ago we hit the 2 GB virtual address space limit."

http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/c0b1d383f9a8ca63?pli=1

 

[Artlav]

A modern browser is like an operating system, yet they are all being made like toys.
Dozens of levels of abstractions stacked one over each other, all the myriads of standards and their misimplementations are encoded, all the stuff is crumbled together, and we got a browser!

 

[blane]

Yup, especially considering that browsers are usually much more than that. IRC client, FTP client and probably tons of other programs are often included as well.

 

[Izack]

Care to use Lynx for the rest of the day instead? :lol:

 

[blane]

I actually use Lynx fairly often when working with Linux. It's perfect and fast if you just want to look up some text documentation (or something on Wikipedia). And it definitely doesn't need 2 Gigabyte of RAM

 

[Izack]

I actually use Lynx fairly often when working with Linux. It's perfect and fast if you just want to look up some text documentation (or something on Wikipedia). And it definitely doesn't need 2 Gigabyte of RAM

Good idea - i'll be tinkering with linux on an old box soon enough, this'll be useful.

If netbooks were any worse they'd be stuck with it too. :lol:

 

[RisingFury]

I miss the days when a fresh XP install used up less then 100 MB of RAM and I complained, when my FireFox would get beyond 70 MB...

I'm in an extended trial period of Chrome and it's not better either. It's faster to load / render the pages, but at a huge cost of resources.

IE is the same kind of spectacular failure.


I just realized; this thread is soon to join the browser mega thread...

 

[blane]

Not expecting the thread to be around long. Was just amazed at the fact that 3 Gigabyte is not enough for the Linker.

 

[Rtyh-12]

With nine tabs open Google Chrome uses around 660 MB here. Not drawing any conclusions, though 660 MB is quite a lot IMO

 

[RisingFury]

With nine tabs open Google Chrome uses around 660 MB here. Not drawing any conclusions, though 660 MB is quite a lot IMO

Yea, it's just crazy. Not quite as high for me - around 300 MB - but I do have other complaints. For one, opening the task manager and seeing multiple chrome.exe entities is just annoying and I tweaked a few settings to make Chrome use only 1 core (single core CPU here) and after that it stopped saving bookmarks and every time I close it and re-open it, it complains about not being closed properly.

I was a loyal Firefox user and will switch back to it soon.

 

[jangofett287]

I've managed 72 tabs without a crash in Crome. I only have 2Gb of RAM. Finally, I have only seen the "Google Chrome has crashed!" Dialogue box once.

 

[MeDiCS]

This is the only tab I have open, and Firefox is already eating up ~600 MB of RAM...

 

[Hielor]

With IE and two tabs (this page and the O-F homepage, it's using ~40MB for me.

Really, for just about everything except YouTube, I've never really noticed an issue with IE...

 

[orb]

Linker nor compiler didn't fail here when I last compiled Filrefox, but it was built on Linux and for Linux, so it isn't related to this particular issue.

 

[blane]

Yup, that is a 32-Bit Windows issue. Usually all programs are limited to 2GB RAM, the upper half being reserved to the system. It is possible to run Windows in a mode that allows about 3GB of RAM for programs, which is what they did last time: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543034

However 3GB is the upper limit.

Also, I am pretty sure compiling and linking will not need that many resources on Linux