Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
GCC 3.2 is here: Now is the time to rebuild everything. How?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
fmalabre
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 376
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zagarna wrote:
didn't work for me, I was still missing the c++ compiler, maybe I did something else wrong...

Can't you just compile gcc 3.2 with gcc 3.1, and then unmerge gcc 3.1.
Then, emerge again gcc 3.2 (compile with gcc 3.2) which should place all the file at the right place?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pindrop
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 165
Location: Virginia, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know this is a dumb question but how do I change my /etc/make.profile to point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2.0?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyron
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Location: Montreal, Qc.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pindrop wrote:
I know this is a dumb question but how do I change my /etc/make.profile to point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2.0?


No...no dumb questions...

/etc/make.profile is a soft link to /usr/portage/profiles/[whichever]

# ls -l /etc/make.profile
will show you where it points to :-)

simply delete the /etc/make.profile link (# rm /etc/make.profile)
and recreate the link:

#ln -s /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2.0 /etc/make.profile

You have to do this as superuser btw...
_________________
M$ Windows: When in doubt, REBOOT
Linux: When in doubt, RTFM ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 7:02 pm    Post subject: upgrading to gcc3.2 Reply with quote

I have a working installation with gcc 2.95.3.
What do I need to do to upgrade to gcc3.2?

As far I understand, I need to:
* link /etc/make.profile to /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2.0
* run /usr/portage/scripts/bootstrap.sh
* emerge -e world

Is this enough?

Does the kernel compile ok with gcc3.2?

Thanks!
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kirill
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 183
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:34 pm    Post subject: Re: upgrading to gcc3.2 Reply with quote

mstamat wrote:
I have a working installation with gcc 2.95.3.
What do I need to do to upgrade to gcc3.2?

As far I understand, I need to:
* link /etc/make.profile to /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2.0
* run /usr/portage/scripts/bootstrap.sh
* emerge -e world
Is this enough?

Please read this whole thread from the beginning. There are A LOT of good posts there considering upgrading. Also check this thread on the mailing lists out: http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2002-August/014324.html (not just the 1st post, read the replys too :D)

mstamat wrote:

Does the kernel compile ok with gcc3.2?


Yes it does. I'm running a gcc 1.4 system and didn't yet have any problems which had anything to do with the compiler itself. I'm using the "default" optimisations, just as IWBCMAN does (read up there), running on a i686.

good luck with breaking your system;)
_________________
--kirill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 8:43 pm    Post subject: broke my system! plz help! Reply with quote

kirill's wish worked.
I ran bootsrap.sh and it broke my system! 8O
Fortunately I use nis, so I didn't lost passwords etc, only fstab and the local groups.

But bootstrap.h also tried to recreate the device files (under /dev)
and now I am stuck with a crippled /dev filesystem. bootstrap.sh has
created lots of files ending with a '-'. The files I used until now are gone.
How do I recreate the /dev filesystem?

I tried MAKEDEV generic-i386 but I get the same errors that I got
when I ran bootstrap.sh:
coyote dev # ./MAKEDEV generic-i386
mv: cannot remove `mem': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `kmem': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `null': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `port': Operation not permitted
.
.
.

Shall I boot with a rescue disk (eg tomsrtbt) and then run the same
thing again? (maybe after chrooting)

PLZ help!!!
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kirill
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 183
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:01 pm    Post subject: Re: broke my system! plz help! Reply with quote

mstamat wrote:

coyote dev # ./MAKEDEV generic-i386
mv: cannot remove `mem': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `kmem': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `null': Operation not permitted
mv: cannot remove `port': Operation not permitted
.
.
.

Shall I boot with a rescue disk (eg tomsrtbt) and then run the same
thing again? (maybe after chrooting)

PLZ help!!!

...they never learn


What if you just restart. then gentoo will remount the /dev filesystem over your old files.
Before you do that, BACKUP everything!
_________________
--kirill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2002 9:14 pm    Post subject: don't panic kirill! :) Reply with quote

No need for backup! Not even for reboot.
I just killed -HUP devfsd :wink:

Now everything's fine. Didn't even have to reboot.
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NonToxic
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:37 am    Post subject: Switching GCCs Reply with quote

Wheee fun. :) After 3 days, I've finally got it to finish emerging. I do a quick 'strings /usr/lib/* | grep GCC' - make sure I'm using GCC 3.0, and - whee fun. I just recompiled the whole box with 2.95. How can I recompile with 3.2, and is it worth it? Will things break if some things are recompiled with 3.2, while others are 2.95? (i.e. if I switch GCCs, then emerge something else?)

Thanks!
--j
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 1:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Switching GCCs Reply with quote

NonToxic:
Bootstrapping gcc3.2 (emerging gcc3.2, glib, gcc3.2 again) shall break some existing programs. The first failure was when I tried to use man (to see rmerge usage).

Read http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-3.2/changes.html if you plan to use gcc3.2 to compile stuff for other boxes.

Also consider keeping backup of your /etc (just in case).

To switch to gcc3.2:
* link /etc/make.profile to point to /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2
* bootstrap gcc3.2. copying from previous post (this worked for me):
Quote:

If you have a running Gentoo system already, I think it is theoretically OK to skip the first glibc step, and just emerge gcc, emerge glibc, emerge gcc again. In order to get the first gcc to skip building other languages such as C++ and java, which are not needed just to compile glibc and gcc, you can temporarily turn on the "bootstrap" USE flag. This will speed up the first gcc compile considerably. Make sure that the "bootstrap" USE flag is off by the time you emerge gcc the second time, or you will not have a C++ compiler, and that will hurt you when it comes time to recompile the rest of your system.

* get & install the latest rmerge from http://www.geocities.com/gargamel205/
* run rmerge -s

Regarding the worthy of switching to gcc3.2: I'll let you know in a couple of days :)
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 2:23 pm    Post subject: Dual gcc configuration? Reply with quote

Is it possible (and how?) to have both gcc2.95.3 and gcc3.2 on the same system?

I need to test a network programm I wrote. I want to have one instance running on my box (with gcc3.2) and a second instance on a box with gcc2. The gcc3.2 compiled binaries won't run on the other box, and I'd like to do all the compiles on my box.

Thanks in advance!
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aja
l33t
l33t


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Location: Edmonton, Canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:15 pm    Post subject: Succesful emerge Reply with quote

Not sure if anyone cares, but I was succesful doing an emerge to gcc 3.2 using Spider's modified instructions at http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2002-August/014369.html
(I'd recommend reading the whole thread, and this one, tho).

The operation was pretty painless, on a pretty vanilla gentoo 1.2 box, with few apps except the base system and KDE. emerge world didn't even need to do too much work - although some (apparently curses-based) KDE apps seemed broken until the emerge world. Way to go Spider.

-aja
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
El_Presidente_Pufferfish
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 11 Jul 2002
Posts: 1179
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would i need to do moving from GCC 3.2 to 3.2-r1?

emerge then bootstrap?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fmalabre
Guru
Guru


Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 376
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2002 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

El_Presidente_Pufferfish wrote:
What would i need to do moving from GCC 3.2 to 3.2-r1?
emerge then bootstrap?

Oh man, I didn't even know there was a 3.2-r1. It's the neverending story...
Well, I guess everything will need to be tested again, that will propably postpone the 1.4...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pdouble
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 24 Aug 2002
Posts: 89
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

El_Presidente_Pufferfish wrote:
What would i need to do moving from GCC 3.2 to 3.2-r1?

emerge then bootstrap?


Nope, just emerge --update world or emerge --update gcc to compile just GCC. The ABI hasn't changed or anything.

If you look in the ChangeLog you'll see that a patch has been made for the -maccumulate-outgoing-args (sp?) flag, and the -fomit-frame-pointer flag is disabled in the ebuild as that was causing problems with gcc. Note only gcc itself won't use this flag, your other ebuilds will unless a specific ebuild disables it.

I've updated to gcc-3.2-r1 without problem.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ancipital
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 259
Location: Grnn

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gah a lot of people should read better!! There are sooo many stupid comments, whilst, if you just *read* this whole thread, it would be much much easier.

So rtfm people. It's much more easy than it looks..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyron
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Location: Montreal, Qc.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vocis wrote:
gah a lot of people should read better!! There are sooo many stupid comments, whilst, if you just *read* this whole thread, it would be much much easier.

So rtfm people. It's much more easy than it looks..


I second that statement :roll:
_________________
M$ Windows: When in doubt, REBOOT
Linux: When in doubt, RTFM ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mstamat
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 130
Location: Greece

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kyron wrote:
vocis wrote:
gah a lot of people should read better!! There are sooo many stupid comments, whilst, if you just *read* this whole thread, it would be much much easier.

So rtfm people. It's much more easy than it looks..


I second that statement :roll:


You seem to be really enjoying saying "rtfm". But in this case there's no fm. Maybe you should try wtfm first. :wink:

And if you think that this thread has "sooo many stupid comments", unworthy of any reply you can stop watching it anytime: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=11963&unwatch=topic

(and some moderator plz delete all 3 of our posts)
_________________
Manolis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyron
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Location: Montreal, Qc.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mstamat wrote:
kyron wrote:
vocis wrote:
gah a lot of people should read better!! There are sooo many stupid comments, whilst, if you just *read* this whole thread, it would be much much easier.

So rtfm people. It's much more easy than it looks..


I second that statement :roll:


You seem to be really enjoying saying "rtfm". But in this case there's no fm. Maybe you should try wtfm first. :wink:

And if you think that this thread has "sooo many stupid comments", unworthy of any reply you can stop watching it anytime: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=11963&unwatch=topic


8O Ohohohoho....this was defenately not intended as an attack in any ways (had not noted the stupid part...my dislexia made me read "redundant and non-productive"). Useless rundundant posts SHOULD be deleted... especially in such an important thread ;-)

Though I must say your Avatar doesn't help in this manner...hihihihihihi
(and some moderator plz delete all 3 of our posts)
_________________
M$ Windows: When in doubt, REBOOT
Linux: When in doubt, RTFM ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ancipital
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 259
Location: Grnn

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With "stupid" I mean:
* already asked
* too weird to ask
* already asked

With RTFM I mainly mean that one should browse the forum as if it *were* a manual ;) I wasn't being personal so sorry if I offended you, this wasn't my intention in any way. Most questions are already answered.
_________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting the other party have things your way.
-- Daniele Vare
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyron
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Location: Montreal, Qc.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does anyone know how to go from GCC 2.95.3 to GCC 3.2?
_________________
M$ Windows: When in doubt, REBOOT
Linux: When in doubt, RTFM ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EPrime
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 80
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Does anyone know how to go from GCC 2.95.3 to GCC 3.2?

Someone was kind enough to post this link, in this thread, on this page, just quite recently; you must have missed it, somehow.
http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2002-August/014369.html

Seems this thread has gone full circle. Maybe we could hack the 'next' link to skip to page 1 and no-one would notice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kyron
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 26 Aug 2002
Posts: 198
Location: Montreal, Qc.

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EPrime wrote:
Quote:
Does anyone know how to go from GCC 2.95.3 to GCC 3.2?

Someone was kind enough to post this link, in this thread, on this page, just quite recently; you must have missed it, somehow.
http://lists.gentoo.org/pipermail/gentoo-dev/2002-August/014369.html

Seems this thread has gone full circle. Maybe we could hack the 'next' link to skip to page 1 and no-one would notice.


Gnihihihi....if you were paying attention, you would have noticed I was bluntly kidding :D

Nontheless, I did follow the abovementionned link's instructions with reasonnable success. It sorta screwed up when came time to "emerge --usepkg =gcc2.95.3-r7" after emerging gcc (3.2).... I reverted to untarring the binary package I had previously generated as per the instructions... Although I am still puzzled as to WHY THE HELL do we emerge the old 2.95.3 gcc over the new gcc 3.2 and then emerge gcc (3.2) after that... (that part I really didn't get....N E wayz)

Well, gcc -v reports 3.2 and "emerge --emptytree -u world" gave me a fully functionnal system after running for 11hours on my P4 1.6Gig W 256MB RAM :-)

By the way, verry little swap seemed to have been used when I performed the emerge (6MB max maybe...but I was sleeping most of the time ;-))
_________________
M$ Windows: When in doubt, REBOOT
Linux: When in doubt, RTFM ;-)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shdwrnnr
n00b
n00b


Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Posts: 17

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2002 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This upgrade currently seems quite treacherous. It does not seem to be something one would want to do on a running email server, for example. While there are always backups, the potential for downtime is just too high in this case. I imagine upgrading a system to the latest major revision of gcc is not trivial, and 1.4 isn't even out yet, so this is perfectly understandable.

But will this be the case even after the release of 1.4, or will such an upgrade (gcc 2.95 -> gcc 3.2 or even gcc 3.1 -> 3.2) become a somewhat safer procedure? Perhaps through the greater availability of packages precompiled with gcc 3.2, or some other means?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EPrime
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 10 Aug 2002
Posts: 80
Location: Denmark

PostPosted: Fri Aug 30, 2002 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Nontheless, I did follow the abovementionned link's instructions with reasonnable success. It sorta screwed up when came time to "emerge --usepkg =gcc2.95.3-r7" after emerging gcc (3.2)....

I think this is related to a bug (search bugs.gentoo.org) in portage that causes the -k flag (eq --usepkg) not to work properly (it tries to compile again).

Quote:
Although I am still puzzled as to WHY THE HELL do we emerge the old 2.95.3 gcc over the new gcc 3.2 and then emerge gcc (3.2) after that...

I didn't get that part either, but think it's a way to cheat portage of something so its database is correct when you're done. Spider might know :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum