View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Headrush Watchman
Joined: 06 Nov 2003 Posts: 5597 Location: Bizarro World
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I noticed a substantial reduction in startup time for firefox using LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
I tried LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1,-Wl,--enable-new-dtags" and no programs compile. The error is Code: | checking for C compiler default output... configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables |
This is with gcc-3.4.3 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
codergeek42 Bodhisattva
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 5142 Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok. All seems to have gone well in my chrooted install. Now to install Grub _________________ ~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
placeholder Advocate
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 Posts: 2500
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have been using these flags since the start of this thread and I have not any problems with my programs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
growse Apprentice
Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 154 Location: Sunny UK
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to check, if i do an emerge -e world, that includes the system packages as well? i'm trying this on my server. _________________ Getting there.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lokheed Veteran
Joined: 12 Jul 2004 Posts: 1295 Location: /usr/src/linux
|
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
growse wrote: | Just to check, if i do an emerge -e world, that includes the system packages as well? i'm trying this on my server. |
yep. world encompasses every package on your computer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jrw6 n00b
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I added the following to my /etc/make.conf:
then I started "emerge -e world". I've got to the following error while compiling gnome-vfs, which I can't figure out or solve:
Code: | /bin/sh ../libtool --mode=compile i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -pthread -DORBIT2=1 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gconf/2 -I/usr/include/orbit-2.0 -I/usr/include/bonobo-activation-2.0 -I/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -DORBIT2=1 -pthread -I/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/orbit-2.0 -I/usr/include/bonobo-activation-2.0 -DXDG_PREFIX=_gnome_vfs_xdg -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_REENTRANT -DG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DDATADIR=\"/usr/share\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/lib\" -DPREFIX=\"/usr\" -DGNOMEVFS_LOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -DSYSCONFDIR=\"/etc\" -DG_LOG_DOMAIN=\"libgnomevfs\" -O2 -march=athlon-xp -fomit-frame-pointer -c -o gnome-vfs-inet-connection.lo `test -f 'gnome-vfs-inet-connection.c' || echo './'`gnome-vfs-inet-connection.c
In file included from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/bonobo-object.h:17,
from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/bonobo-types.h:16,
from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/libbonobo.h:18,
from gnome-vfs-daemon-method.c:24:
/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/Bonobo.h:6334: internal compiler error: Bus error
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
|
then a little later:
Code: | i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I.. -I.. -pthread -DORBIT2=1 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gconf/2 -I/usr/include/orbit-2.0 -I/usr/include/bonobo-activation-2.0 -I/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -DORBIT2=1 -pthread -I/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0 -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/orbit-2.0 -I/usr/include/bonobo-activation-2.0 -DXDG_PREFIX=_gnome_vfs_xdg -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_BSD_SOURCE -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS -D_REENTRANT -DG_DISABLE_DEPRECATED -DDATADIR=\"/usr/share\" -DLIBDIR=\"/usr/lib\" -DPREFIX=\"/usr\" -DGNOMEVFS_LOCALEDIR=\"/usr/share/locale\" -DSYSCONFDIR=\"/etc\" -DG_LOG_DOMAIN=\"libgnomevfs\" -O2 -march=athlon-xp -fomit-frame-pointer -c gnome-vfs-init.c -MT gnome-vfs-init.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/gnome-vfs-init.TPlo -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/gnome-vfs-init.o
In file included from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/bonobo-object.h:17,
from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/bonobo-types.h:16,
from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/libbonobo.h:18,
from gnome-vfs-client.c:3:
/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/Bonobo.h:6334: internal compiler error: Bus error
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
In file included from /usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/bonobo-object.h:17,
from gnome-vfs-client.h:4,
from gnome-vfs-init.c:31:
/usr/include/libbonobo-2.0/bonobo/Bonobo.h:6334: internal compiler error: Bus error
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
make[3]: *** [gnome-vfs-cancellation.lo] Error 1
make[3]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[3]: *** [gnome-vfs-client.lo] Error 1
make[3]: *** [gnome-vfs-init.lo] Error 1
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gnome-vfs-2.8.3-r1/work/gnome-vfs-2.8.3/libgnomevfs'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gnome-vfs-2.8.3-r1/work/gnome-vfs-2.8.3'
make: *** [all] Error 2
|
Anyone know how to solve this?
edit: I re-emeged libbonobo, and that solved this. Sadly doing so destroyed my progress on "emerge -e world" so I have to start it again now. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
suede n00b
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 Posts: 17
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, one last time..
is it -Wl (small L)
or -W1 (as in half-way between zero and two)
I've just read the entire thread and half the posters have used l and the other half used 1! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lokheed Veteran
Joined: 12 Jul 2004 Posts: 1295 Location: /usr/src/linux
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
suede wrote: | OK, one last time..
is it -Wl (small L)
or -W1 (as in half-way between zero and two)
I've just read the entire thread and half the posters have used l and the other half used 1! |
Well if you tried it with a 1, it would spit out an error saying its not a valid flag. If you tried it with a zero it would also spit out and error and not compile.
Its:
"(Minus)(Capital W)(Lowercase L)(comma)(Minus)(Capital O)(Number 1)"
Or just cp this into make.conf:
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
charlieg Advocate
Joined: 30 Jul 2002 Posts: 2149 Location: Manchester UK
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, after trying this, something has gone kaboom on my system. I can no longer compile anything, at all. It complains that, essentially, gcc can not compile anything. Switching to an older version of gcc does not help either. _________________ Want Free games?
Free Gamer - open source games list & commentary
Open source web-enabled rich UI platform: Vexi |
|
Back to top |
|
|
planetsheinker Guru
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 403 Location: Israel
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Added this LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" to /etc/make.conf
and recomiled Thunderbird.
Before it took 7-10 sec to start and now it took 7 sec to start for the first time and 3!!!!! sec to start any time after that, I guess it takes a long time to cashe the binary.
This is great, going to do an "emerge -e system", and post the results when it's done:-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
irf2003 Veteran
Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 1078
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pwnz3r wrote: | I have been using these flags since the start of this thread and I have not any problems with my programs. :D |
@Pwnz3r,
just for the records, could you be more specific as to what loader flags are being referred to?
TIA
happy gentooing |
|
Back to top |
|
|
planetsheinker Guru
Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 403 Location: Israel
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
planetsheinker wrote: | Added this LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" to /etc/make.conf
and recomiled Thunderbird.
Before it took 7-10 sec to start and now it took 7 sec to start for the first time and 3!!!!! sec to start any time after that, I guess it takes a long time to cashe the binary.
This is great, going to do an "emerge -e system", and post the results when it's done:-) |
Replayng to myself
"emerge -e system" spited some error, but just as I was going to post it (e.g copy/paste), the power whent down
Is there some log file that the error might have been loged? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aethyr Veteran
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 Posts: 1085 Location: NYC
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I feel compelled to reply, since I started this topic.
To those having problems (charlieg and planetsheinker), can you be more descriptive in what has gone wrong so people can assist you?
charlieg: I haven't heard of anyone breaking their system yet with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1". I don't know about any of the other flags. The worst that I've heard happen is a package won't compile.
planetsheinker: You'll have to rerun the emerge again for the failed package to get the error message. You can however get an idea by going to /var/tmp/portage/ and looking in the package directory. When a package fails, I believe it keeps a /work/ directory open? I might be wrong, but if you go into that /work/ directory, and type "make" it should reproduce the error. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rawoul n00b
Joined: 27 Dec 2003 Posts: 65
|
Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recompiled all my system with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--sort-common -s" and everything works fines \o/. I don't think i can feel a difference in speed though ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hotwok n00b
Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 48 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is there any way to see what LDFLAGS a binary was compiled with? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gkmac Guru
Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 333 Location: West Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hotwok wrote: | Is there any way to see what LDFLAGS a binary was compiled with? | I don't know if there is an "official command" to do this, but try something like... Code: | cat /var/db/pkg/app-arch/gzip-1.3.5-r5/LDFLAGS |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
hotwok n00b
Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 48 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gkmac wrote: | hotwok wrote: | Is there any way to see what LDFLAGS a binary was compiled with? | I don't know if there is an "official command" to do this, but try something like... Code: | cat /var/db/pkg/app-arch/gzip-1.3.5-r5/LDFLAGS |
|
thanks. i recompiled KDE and XFCE4 with the ldflags -Wl,-O1 and i think i notice a shorter startup time for XFCE4 but im not sure, it could be placebo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
malloc l33t
Joined: 19 Sep 2003 Posts: 762
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hotwok wrote: | gkmac wrote: | hotwok wrote: | Is there any way to see what LDFLAGS a binary was compiled with? | I don't know if there is an "official command" to do this, but try something like... Code: | cat /var/db/pkg/app-arch/gzip-1.3.5-r5/LDFLAGS |
|
thanks. i recompiled KDE and XFCE4 with the ldflags -Wl,-O1 and i think i notice a shorter startup time for XFCE4 but im not sure, it could be placebo |
It's not a placebo, xfce4 does start faster after re-compiling it with -Wl,-O1 _________________ --> Linux ### 2.6.11-ck2 #1 Sat Mar 12 20:21:30 WET 2005 i686 GNU/Linux <-- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Deranger Veteran
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 Posts: 1215
|
Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tried to recompile some apps with LDFLAGS, and startup times are slightly faster. Now recompiling whole system with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blueSceaDa Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 90
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if I should put this LDFLAGS now or not, because it still didnt come out, if it really got no drawbacks.
And someone said it could really mess up security.
so can I use them without having to be worried ? _________________ Athlon XP 2500+ @ ~2100MHz; GeForce FX 5600 256MB; 3x256MB RAM; ASUS A7N8X-X
echo 'LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"' >> /etc/make.conf - no problems here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
codergeek42 Bodhisattva
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 5142 Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wee! I feel compelled to reply since I got my new install up and running (had a few easily solved Grub issues). I've bootstrapped and done the entire install as ~x86 with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" and all is fine. Maybe it's just placebo...maybe it's just the faster hard disk, but things seem a lot snappier. _________________ ~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
loki99 Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2003 Posts: 2056 Location: Vienna, €urope
|
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just wondering! can i use LDFLAGS and prelinking or do they exclude each other? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
blueSceaDa Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 05 Jan 2005 Posts: 90
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
codergeek42 wrote: | Wee! I feel compelled to reply since I got my new install up and running (had a few easily solved Grub issues). I've bootstrapped and done the entire install as ~x86 with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" and all is fine. Maybe it's just placebo...maybe it's just the faster hard disk, but things seem a lot snappier. |
nice to hear
Can you post here if any strange issues occur ? thx ! _________________ Athlon XP 2500+ @ ~2100MHz; GeForce FX 5600 256MB; 3x256MB RAM; ASUS A7N8X-X
echo 'LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"' >> /etc/make.conf - no problems here |
|
Back to top |
|
|
codergeek42 Bodhisattva
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 5142 Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
loki99 wrote: | just wondering! can i use LDFLAGS and prelinking or do they exclude each other? | If I understand correctly, using these LDFLAGS basically does what prelinking does, but in a safer way (not modyfing the binaries, just changing the way they're linked to shared libraries). blueSceaDa wrote: | Can you post here if any strange issues occur ? thx ! | Deal _________________ ~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
Back to top |
|
|
rhill Retired Dev
Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 1629 Location: sk.ca
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
i've heard that and i've heard they are two seperate things. anyways, it doesn't stop you from prelinking, i just don't know if it has an additional benefit to it.
BTW, --enable-new-dtags is enabled in newer binutils by default
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65002#c7 _________________ by design, by neglect
for a fact or just for effect |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|