Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
GCC 4.1.0 - is it safe/worth ?
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
zietbukuel
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 606
Location: /dev/peru/lima

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks GetCool, I'll now start recompiling my system with the new gcc :)
_________________
AMD FX 8350 8-core CPU
16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 RAM
ASUS M5A97 Motherboard
1TB (Gentoo) + 500GB (Windows 7 for games) HDDs
Nvidia 550 GTX Ti 1Gb Ram DDR5
Cooler Master CM690 Case
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrakashP
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 1246
Location: C.C.A.A., Germania

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GetCool wrote:
zietbukuel wrote:
Are this CFLAGS safe for gcc-4.1.1?
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -msse -msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow

Thanks


Yes, those are safe for a Venice core (or X2), but a better (less complex) way to write them is:

Code:
CFLAGS="-march=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -msse3"


The above will achieve the same effect.


Only if u use AMD64. The same flags work on x86, (with Athlon64 inside) but then are different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
prymitive
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 260

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrakashP wrote:
GetCool wrote:
zietbukuel wrote:
Are this CFLAGS safe for gcc-4.1.1?
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -msse -msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow

Thanks


Yes, those are safe for a Venice core (or X2), but a better (less complex) way to write them is:

Code:
CFLAGS="-march=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -msse3"


The above will achieve the same effect.


Only if u use AMD64. The same flags work on x86, (with Athlon64 inside) but then are different.

What's the difference?? I've got Turion laptop and I'm running x86 gentoo, amd64 gives me more memory usage and nothing else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrakashP
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 1246
Location: C.C.A.A., Germania

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

prymitive wrote:
PrakashP wrote:
GetCool wrote:
zietbukuel wrote:
Are this CFLAGS safe for gcc-4.1.1?
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -msse -msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow

Thanks


Yes, those are safe for a Venice core (or X2), but a better (less complex) way to write them is:

Code:
CFLAGS="-march=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -msse3"


The above will achieve the same effect.


Only if u use AMD64. The same flags work on x86, (with Athlon64 inside) but then are different.

What's the difference?? I've got Turion laptop and I'm running x86 gentoo, amd64 gives me more memory usage and nothing else.


I was talking about the flags on both arches, not the arches as such. Inform yourself, what amd64 is in contrast to x86/ia32.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
prymitive
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 260

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrakashP wrote:
prymitive wrote:
PrakashP wrote:
GetCool wrote:
zietbukuel wrote:
Are this CFLAGS safe for gcc-4.1.1?
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -msse -msse2 -msse3 -m3dnow

Thanks


Yes, those are safe for a Venice core (or X2), but a better (less complex) way to write them is:

Code:
CFLAGS="-march=athlon64 -O2 -pipe -msse3"


The above will achieve the same effect.


Only if u use AMD64. The same flags work on x86, (with Athlon64 inside) but then are different.

What's the difference?? I've got Turion laptop and I'm running x86 gentoo, amd64 gives me more memory usage and nothing else.


I was talking about the flags on both arches, not the arches as such. Inform yourself, what amd64 is in contrast to x86/ia32.


I know what's the difference between amd64 and x86, I tired gentoo under both archs and under my every day work (inet, mp3/divx, enemy territory sometimes) it didn't gave me any performance boost, it just eats more memory mostly due the fact that I'm running 32 bit and 64 bit apps at the same time so I got many libraries loaded twice. I've got 512MB ram and under 32 bit swap is empty most the time, under 64 bits it's used very often, all I need to do is start enemy territory.
You said that those flags are different under x86 and amd64, do You mean that they work different or You write them down different? All I know that -march=athlon64 implies sse, 3dnow and mmx flags but that is true for x86 and amd64 if I'm correct so I'm curious about this difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrakashP
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 1246
Location: C.C.A.A., Germania

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you overlooked -fomit-frame-pointer. This is only implied on AMD64 and not on x86.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
prymitive
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 260

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrakashP wrote:
Well, you overlooked -fomit-frame-pointer. This is only implied on AMD64 and not on x86.

Oh yes, it breaks debuging on x86 and not on amd64 if I'm right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
agent_jdh
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 Aug 2002
Posts: 1776
Location: Scotland

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

prymitive wrote:
Oh yes, it breaks debuging on x86 and not on amd64 if I'm right?


AFAIK not with newer versions of gdb.
_________________
Jingle Jangle Jewellery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chtephan
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Offenburg, Germany

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gcc 4 can generate "location lists" with the object code so that gdb can produce valid backtraces without frame pointers. But these "location lists" are debugging info (generated by -g) and debugging is usually stripped away by portage if not disabled.

I have added -g to my CFLAGS and added "splitdebug" to my FEATURES variable. This way every binary will be splitted into actual binary and debugging info, the latter going into /usr/lib/debug where gdb can find it, but the binary itself will be stripped as usual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nivw
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:36 am    Post subject: following the gcc hype Reply with quote

I just tried re-emerging world on two difrent pcs, and got ERROR: sys-devel/gcc-4.1.1 failed
one is a pentium-4 with CFLAGS="-march=pentium4 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer" ; CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
other is a athlon-xp with CFLAGS="-O2 -march=athlon-xp -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -ftracer -fprefetch-loop-arrays -fno-ident"
the log for the athlon pc is here www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~nivv/gcc-4.11.fail.tar.bz2

uname -r for the athlon: 2.6.16-ck11

I used to have nosrip in both machines in the FEATURES , and just took it out.
I couldnt find any open bug , or issues in the forums.

Thanks,
NIv
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chtephan
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 266
Location: Offenburg, Germany

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is strange. I can see tons of "file not found" errors in your log.

Starting with fixincludes, where they are not fatal:

Cannot access fltk-1.1/FL/x.h from /usr/include
error 2 (No such file or directory)
[...] (lots of them, what's going on there, can you take a look?)

Then here are the fatal ones:

/var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1/work/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/reload1.c:24:23: error: coretypes.h: No such file or directory
In file included from /var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1/work/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/reload1.c:25:
./tm.h:5:31: error: config/i386/i386.h: No such file or directory
./tm.h:6:31: error: config/i386/unix.h: No such file or directory
./tm.h:7:30: error: config/i386/att.h: No such file or directory

Which looks like gcc can't find the files that were supposed to be in the source archive. (???)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nivw
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am very gratfull for your help

chtephan wrote:

Cannot access fltk-1.1/FL/x.h from /usr/include
error 2 (No such file or directory)
[...] (lots of them, what's going on there, can you take a look?)


ls -la /usr/include/fltk-1.1/FL/x.h

gives me a red flashing lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 2006-02-06 23:02 /usr/include/fltk-1.1/FL/x.h -> x.H

so I guess its broken

I used to have gcc 3.4.6-r1 over this pc

[EDIT] I now see that /usr/include/fltk-1.1/FL was full of bad symlinks.
I also notice that /usr/include/fltk-1.1/FL was created on Feb 2 ??

equery belongs x.h - didnt supply the culpit

chtephan wrote:

/var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1/work/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/reload1.c:24:23: error: coretypes.h: No such file or directory
In file included from /var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1/work/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/reload1.c:25:
./tm.h:5:31: error: config/i386/i386.h: No such file or directory
./tm.h:6:31: error: config/i386/unix.h: No such file or directory
./tm.h:7:30: error: config/i386/att.h: No such file or directory


correct - I cant locate these files.

I will try to rm the x.h ,sync and try again. but as I did it on two different pcs , I think we need more positive response to 4.1 b4 unmask


after I rm -rf /usr/include/fltk-1.1 and emerged gcc again - it worked!!!

Niv


Last edited by nivw on Sat May 27, 2006 2:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nivw
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

btw /usr/include/fltk-1.1/FL/ is OK on the first machine:
2.6.17-rc3 , gcc- 3.4.5-r1

other log: www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~nivv/gcc411.bigone.tar.bz2

I see:
Quote:

mv: cannot stat `libgcc/*.vis': No such file or directory
make[3]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1/work/build/gcc'
subdirs="cp fortran build"; for dir in $subdirs; \
do \
if [ -d stage1/$dir ] ; then true ; else mkdir stage1/$dir ; fi ; \
done
rm -f stage1/libgcc.a stage1/libgcc_eh.a stage1/libgcov.a
rm -f stage1/libgcc_s*.so
rm -f stage1/libunwind.a stage1/libunwind*.so
mv specs stage1/specs
mv *.o s-* xgcc cpp cc1 cc1*-dummy crtbegin.o crtbeginS.o crtbeginT.o crtend.o crtendS.o crtfastmath.o gcc-cross protoize unprotoize specs collect2 gcov-iov gcov gcov-dump *.[0-9][0-9].* *.[si] *-checksum.c libbackend.a libgcc.mk g++ g++-cross cc1plus gfortran f951 stage1
mv: cannot stat `crtbegin.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `crtbeginS.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `crtbeginT.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `crtend.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `crtendS.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `crtfastmath.o': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `gcc-cross': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `protoize': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `unprotoize': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `specs': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `gcov-iov': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `gcov': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `gcov-dump': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `*.[0-9][0-9].*': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `*.[si]': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `g++-cross': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `cc1plus': No such file or directory
mv: cannot stat `f951': No such file or directory
make[2]: [stage1-start] Error 1 (ignored)


locate crtbegin.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.5/crtbegin.o

cant locate a lib named libgcc.

answer: I erased /var/tmp/portage/gcc-4.1.1 and emerged gcc again - solved


Last edited by nivw on Sat May 27, 2006 6:05 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Halcy0n
Developer
Developer


Joined: 17 Sep 2003
Posts: 1682
Location: Freehold, NJ

PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone doing an upgrade from 3.4->4.1, I was wrong in saying you could have a mixed install of 3.4 and 4.1. The soname was the same, and I did not run into any problems, but it seems the ABI is slightly different, so you should follow the GCC Upgrading Guide.[/url]
_________________
Mark Loeser
http://www.halcy0n.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nivw
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found it nececery to add dev-lang/swig ~x86 to /etc/portage/package.keywords
in order to get emerge -e world

[edit] also echo dev-util/subversion ~x86 >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
syouth
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 275

PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's what I did. Upgraded from gcc 3.4.6 to 4.1.1, did emerge -e system and emerge -e world successfully. Then came back from weekend trip and rebuilt kernel with new complier and rebooted. And it all ended like I knew. Everything seems to be working fine and that's it.

Thank devs and all who did give their contribution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nivw
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

well I have three pcs in two lacations.
near pc is a athlon-XP +3200 1.5 Gb
far pc P4 1.8A 0.5Gb
far laptop P3 750Mhz 256Mb


sure would be helpfull to add a time estimation to the tutorial.
I mean, I palnned to upgrade my internet connection tomorrow , but all pcs - are still quite busy..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GetCool
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Location: Madison, Wisconsin

PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2006 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nivw wrote:
sure would be helpfull to add a time estimation to the tutorial.


I don't see how any such estimation could be accurately given. Compilation times can be affected by many different factors, and whenever you do an "emerge -e system/world" command, you should expect your PC to be busy for quite some time...

Also, as has been discussed at length, performing:

Code:
emerge -e system
emerge -e world


...is not always enough to ensure that your system is completely up-to-date. A complete recompilation of the entire system will include:

Code:
emerge -e system
emerge -e system
emerge -e world
emerge -e world


...which will of course take quite a bit of time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VanDan
Guru
Guru


Joined: 30 Sep 2002
Posts: 586
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 12:12 am    Post subject: Not worth it, but safe Reply with quote

I've been testing out various versions of gcc on various computers, and here are my conclusions.

Firstly, for everything that I do ( primary desktop usage machines here ), gcc-4.1.x is safe.

On PPC systems, gcc-4.1.x is also ever so slightly faster. On my Turion64 notebook, running a 64-bit system, though, there is a performance drop.

The test:

I compiled Enlightenment-0.17 and all of it's dependancies with both compilers. I then started Enlightenment ( with no modules running, no animated backgrounds, etc ), and ran evas_software_x11_test 4 times. I then switched compilers, recompiled all dependancies, restarted E, and re-tested.

CFLAGS="-march=k8 -O2 -pipe -fweb -ftracer" with both compilers.

The systems:

15i Apple Powerbook ( TiBook ) with 1Ghz G4 and 1GB RAM.
17i Turion64 Notebook with 2.2Ghz Turion and 1GB RAM.

The results ( evas benchmark scores ):

G4 / gcc-3.4.4
2.237
2.238
2.229
2.237

G4 / gcc-4.1.0-beta20050902 ( and yes I realise this is old ... it was a while ago )
2.293
2.286
2.299
2.306

So we're looking at about a 2 - 3.5 % increase from gcc-3.4.4 to gcc-4.1.0. Not too bad. Certainly not a compelling reason in itself to upgrade, but it's better than a kick up the arse.

Turion64 / gcc-3.4.6
8.312
8.287
8.348
8.341

Turion64 / gcc-4.1.1
8.124
8.098
8.130
8.154

Here we've got a 2 % decrease in performance.

Now of course there are benchmarks, and then there are benchmarks. This is one benchmark. Read into it what you will, but I'm seeing a small gain for PPC systems, and a small loss for AMD64 systems.
_________________
David Hicks' plea. Was it:

a) I plead guilty, or
b) Please let me out of here and end the torture
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Corpse Fiend
n00b
n00b


Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently I've performed a full stage1 install on a pentium3 machine with gcc-4.1.1. Bootstrap and emerge -e system went without significant errors (only portage screwing dependencies sometimes, easy to resolve). The only issue was what I've already mentioned in this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
engineermdr
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 08 Nov 2003
Posts: 217
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Not worth it, but safe Reply with quote

VanDan wrote:
The systems:

15i Apple Powerbook ( TiBook ) with 1Ghz G4 and 1GB RAM.
17i Turion64 Notebook with 2.2Ghz Turion and 1GB RAM.

The results ( evas benchmark scores ):

G4 / gcc-3.4.4
2.237
2.238
2.229
2.237

G4 / gcc-4.1.0-beta20050902 ( and yes I realise this is old ... it was a while ago )
2.293
2.286
2.299
2.306

So we're looking at about a 2 - 3.5 % increase from gcc-3.4.4 to gcc-4.1.0. Not too bad. Certainly not a compelling reason in itself to upgrade, but it's better than a kick up the arse.

Turion64 / gcc-3.4.6
8.312
8.287
8.348
8.341

Turion64 / gcc-4.1.1
8.124
8.098
8.130
8.154

Here we've got a 2 % decrease in performance.

Now of course there are benchmarks, and then there are benchmarks. This is one benchmark. Read into it what you will, but I'm seeing a small gain for PPC systems, and a small loss for AMD64 systems.


I came to about the same conclusion using my unofficial Athlon64 benchmarks using gzip, bzip2, lame, flac, gpg. But honestly, the machine as a whole seems to rip through configure scripts and compiling a little faster. The big push for me was gcc-4.1.1 was the first time I was able to get the KDE visibility and as-needed stuff to work right and that did make a big difference.

What's really surprising though, is how much faster the G4 is compared to the Turion64/Athlon64. Is the Turion that much slower or do you think this is just an issue of the benchmark of choice?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xithix
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 228

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Higher is better. The Turion was much faster.
_________________
:wq
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
engineermdr
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 08 Nov 2003
Posts: 217
Location: Chippewa Falls, WI, USA

PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, that makes sense then. I thought those numbers were execution time in seconds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
<3
l33t
l33t


Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 738

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just upgraded to gcc 4.1.1 and rebuild toolchain + world with very few problems. I have not done any benchmarks but imo my systems seems to be running noticably smoother. The only packages that I was not able to get to compile were wine, unrar and gaim-encryption. I would suggest that everyone that has not done so upgrade to gcc 4.1.1 its worth it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bloop
n00b
n00b


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 26
Location: Germany

PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey

I'm just compiling world (435 packages) with GCC 4.1.1 .

Code:
emerge -e system


went smoothy atfer I removed pam-login cause it was blocking shadow.
No reboot done since recompilation of the system. I will report my progress when all is done.

Greetz
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  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
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