(__DEPRECATED__)GCC 344tarball

Message

cheater1034 · Post by **cheater1034** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:28 am

DEPRECATED
While it lasted - it is based on Bob P's stage1/3 installation method
-----
This tarball should not be used, I dont like it at all, it is deprecated, stay tuned for conrad Stage3 tarballs (GCC 4.0.2-r1, glibc-2.3.90*, binutils 2.16.90*, etc)
-----
Gentoo 2005.1 Stage3 tarball-NPTL (The right way this time )-GCC 3.4.4-new toolchain,rebuilt new toolchain, and rebuilt system with new compiler-boost is included-portage snapshot OCT. 2
This time I did it right, it is fully compatible, and works way better and reliable than the other tarball (packages actually compile)

It builds quite fast, it comes pre-installed with boost, which is a c++ thing, and a portage snapshot, and nptl rather than traditional linux threads.

Here's the make.conf

Code: Select all

CFLAGS="-O3 -march-i686 -fforce-addr -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -pipe"
CHOST="i586-pc-linux-gnu"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fvisibility-inlines-hidden"
PORT_LOGDIR=/var/log/portage
PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/usr/local/portage
USE="nptl"
CONFIG_PROTECT="-*"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
# GENTOO_MIRRORS=""
# SYNC=""

There are a couple more lines - I am in windows and couldnt copy over the file - it failed in rfstoolgui for some reason.

Anyway, to download this Fully-Compatible GCC 3.4.4 tarball (gcc 3.3.5 was pruned and not installed at all) just use the link below - I had absolutely 0 problems building the system, and 0 problems building kde,mplayer,xorg,xmms,gaim, and all the dependencies, therefore I classify it as stable.

-----
Download
http://bfgraphics.net/stage3-x86-2005.1 ... tl.tar.bz2

How to Use
Just do a normal gentoo stage3 installation, and use this tarball.

nxsty · Post by **nxsty** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:22 am

I have a couple of questions.

Is this built with cthepans gcc4 ebuilds with hardened/ssp support?
What glibc/binutils do you use?
What are those "Performance-Enhancing CFLAGS" you are talking about?
Is it built with ~x86 or x86?

Thanks

mbar · Post by **mbar** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:15 pm

pls post make.conf

cheater1034 · Post by **cheater1034** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:45 pm

Ok...
Binutils is 2.16.91.0.3
Glibc is 2.3.5-r1
It was built with the 4.0.2 ebuilds from gentoo (added gcc to package.keywords, and package.unmask)

the GCC 4.0.2 has hardened/ssp support, however the hardenedssp profile is not set to the default, but it can be with gcc-config
(sorry if typing is hard to understand, I'm in links

)
Here's make.conf- as seen in the Jackass! method

Code: Select all

CFLAGS="-O3 -march-i686 -fforce-addr -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -pipe"
CHOST="i386-pc-linux-gnu"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fvisibility-inlines-hidden"
PORT_LOGDIR=/var/log/portage
PORTDIR_OVERLAY=/usr/local/portage
USE="nptl"
CONFIG_PROTECT="-*"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
# GENTOO_MIRRORS=""
# SYNC=""

That's the entire make.conf, for those interested in seeing it, it can be changed to whatever you may wish.

Hope this is a bit more info
-BB

cheater1034 · Post by **cheater1034** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:29 pm

I've edited the original post - See there for answers

StringCheesian · Post by **StringCheesian** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 3:37 pm

Cool! Nice work. Now I might actually try gcc 4.0 to see how it compares to 3.4.

Just a few problems:

Did this typo make it into the actual make.conf?

-march-i686

(should be an equal sign)

Minor nitpick:

will work with most, if not, all processors pentium1-4

"-march=i686" is NOT compatible with Pentium 1 because i686 is for Pentium Pro and up.

I suggest one of these 3 alternatives (in order of preference):
1. Change "-march=i686" to "-march=i586 -mtune=i686" and CHOST to CHOST="i586-pc-linux-gnu". This will optimize for i686 as much as possible without sacrificing Pentium 1 compatibility.
2. Change CHOST to CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" to match "-march=i686" and say it works with P-Pro and up.
3. Keep CHOST the way it is, change "-march=i686" to "-march=i386 -mtune=i686", and say it works with 386 and up.

nxsty · Post by **nxsty** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:04 pm

I think this is a good idea. I've been thinking about creating stage tarballs myself with gcc4 for x86_64. However your tarball has some flaws.

First it doesn't contain NPTL but only the old linuxthreads llibraries. This is because you use a i386 CHOST and NPTL wont build on that, i586 or i686 is needed for NPTL in gentoo.
A lot of system packages is not compiled with gcc4. Glibc for example reports being compiled with gcc 3.3. The 2.3.5-r1 ebuild in portage doesn't work with gcc4 anyway so you need to use a custom overlay or any of the cvs snapshots.
The included gcc4 doesn't have ssp support. It's currently under development so you have to use a custom overlay for that too. (Check the gcc4 thread in the portage and programming forum)
And finally those CFLAGS will only slow you down, especially in gcc4 since the flags implied by -O3 has changed.

predatorfreak · Post by **predatorfreak** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:53 am

Also, not to nit-pick more but, -momit-leaf-frame-pointer isn't required since your using -fomit-frame-pointer (which omits all frame pointers).

StringCheesian · Post by **StringCheesian** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:57 am

predatorfreak wrote:Also, not to nit-pick more but, -momit-leaf-frame-pointer isn't required since your using -fomit-frame-pointer (which omits all frame pointers).

This guy disagrees with you, and he makes a pretty good case:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-24 ... ml#2407614

EDIT: Nevermind, predatorfreak is right - see below.

nxsty · Post by **nxsty** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:57 am

StringCheesian wrote:This guy disagrees with you, and he makes a pretty good case:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-24 ... ml#2407614

It's true that -fomit-frame-pointer doesn't include -momit-leaf-frame-pointer but it still removes all frame pointers. The reson why code compiled with only -fomit-frame-pointer is different from code compiled with both flags is becase -momit-leaf-frame-pointer overrides -fomit-frame-pointer so you will end up with less optimized code when using both.

StringCheesian · Post by **StringCheesian** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:49 am

nxsty wrote:
StringCheesian wrote:This guy disagrees with you, and he makes a pretty good case:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-24 ... ml#2407614
It's true that -fomit-frame-pointer doesn't include -momit-leaf-frame-pointer but it still removes all frame pointers. The reson why code compiled with only -fomit-frame-pointer is different from code compiled with both flags is becase -momit-leaf-frame-pointer overrides -fomit-frame-pointer so you will end up with less optimized code when using both.

I just tried it and looked at the assembler output, and of course you're right.

Thank you for correcting me. I'm sorry

. Sorry predatorfreak.

pv · Post by pv » Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:29 pm

StringCheesian wrote:Cool! Nice work. Now I might actually try gcc 4.0 to see how it compares to 3.4.

I'll be VERY happy to see the results of your tests and feelings. It's said that 4.0 is slower than 3.4 and makes slower programs that consume more memory. It's very interesting to know what do YOU think about it.

(DEPRECATED)GCC 344tarball

(DEPRECATED)GCC 344tarball