View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kidel Fastro n00b
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Kraków / Poland
|
Posted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: are those necessary CFLAGS? o.O |
|
|
luser99 wrote: | SHOULD I ENABLE THOSE FLAGS AND RECOMPILE MY SYSTEM? |
Well as i said, everything is working without any problems.
Did you mean that all these cflags ale blending performance ? or only when they are used together ?
Code: | -mmmx -msse -msse2 -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse,387 -DNO_DEBUG -DG_DISABLE_ASSERT -DNDEBUG |
_________________ He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
red-wolf76 l33t
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 Posts: 714 Location: Rhein-Main Area
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
maverick6664 wrote: | I've got another trouble.
Since I upgraded gcc to 4.1.0 and glibc to 2.4-r1 and some other packages, I have been getting crash with mozilla/seamonkey-1.0.1 and nightly build (not gentoo's package), when opening http://www.google.com or browsing http://softwareforums.intel.com/ids. The crash doesn't always happen, but more often than not.
So I want to ask what's the possibility of the cause?
I suspect glibc-2.4 and am trying to go back to 2.3.6-r3 (yes, going back is somewhat tricky, but I found a way). I seem to have to do another "emerge -e world"....!! | I think, reverting glibc is a Bad Thing, but did you try 2.4-r2 yet? _________________ 0mFg, G3nt00 r0X0r$ T3h B1g!1111
Use sane CFLAGS! If for no other reason, do it for the lulz! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
red-wolf76 wrote: | I think, reverting glibc is a Bad Thing, but did you try 2.4-r2 yet? |
Time will tell..
I had mistakenly deleted part of portage database in /var/lib/pkg, and had to build my box from scratch!! At a time, I couldn't go ahead because of /var/lib/pkg/sys-libs/XXXXXXX-LOCK (or something like that) and when I deleted it, I removed other files also.. That's the beginning of this fun!
So now I'm building that system again with gcc-4.1.0 glibc-2.3.6-r3 this time. I tried to install glibc-2.4-r2, but it cannot be unmasked with /etc/portage/package.keywords (I can upgrade up to 2.4-r1). How can I install it (but it's not necessary for now)? Now I'm using the 2nd Gentoo box to post this. _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
red-wolf76 l33t
Joined: 13 Apr 2005 Posts: 714 Location: Rhein-Main Area
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maverick6664 wrote: | red-wolf76 wrote: | I think, reverting glibc is a Bad Thing, but did you try 2.4-r2 yet? |
Time will tell..
(...)
So now I'm building that system again with gcc-4.1.0 glibc-2.3.6-r3 this time. I tried to install glibc-2.4-r2, but it cannot be unmasked with /etc/portage/package.keywords (I can upgrade up to 2.4-r1). How can I install it (but it's not necessary for now)? Now I'm using the 2nd Gentoo box to post this. | Forget what I said. My brain is cheese. I just checked and I've got -r1 installed as well. I posted that from my windows-box at work, so obviously I momentarily plunged into mental oblivion.
Now if only I could get my boss to install Gentoo on all machines. That would so totally alter my job profile! _________________ 0mFg, G3nt00 r0X0r$ T3h B1g!1111
Use sane CFLAGS! If for no other reason, do it for the lulz! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
krigav Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 121
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Running GCC 4.1 with Glibc 2.3.6 and KDE 3.5.2 without any issues. So far everything emerged just fine.
So far I can't see any noticeable speed up. too. _________________ There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers. So please help users that are new to linux/gentoo by answering unanswered questions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now I have no crash with mozilla/seamonkey to open gmail or google. I'm not sure it was due to glibc-2.4 or not (other libraries might by corrupted), but now I'm completely satisfied with my current environments.
I want to stick to older (I mean "close to the stable release") packages, so I will use glibc-2.3.6-r3 for the time being.
Thanks all!! _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005 Posts: 10590 Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | * Compiling will be slower compared to almost any other version of GCC. ... |
Yep. About 40% slower for me, as measured on GLIBC 2.4, which should be a sufficiently long and varied compile to be some sort of benchmark.
- John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luser99 n00b
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: are those necessary CFLAGS? o.O |
|
|
Kidel Fastro wrote: | luser99 wrote: | SHOULD I ENABLE THOSE FLAGS AND RECOMPILE MY SYSTEM? |
Well as i said, everything is working without any problems.
Did you mean that all these cflags ale blending performance ? or only when they are used together ?
Code: | -mmmx -msse -msse2 -ffast-math -mfpmath=sse,387 -DNO_DEBUG -DG_DISABLE_ASSERT -DNDEBUG |
|
Ok I will then emerge my entire system with those CFLAGS. Those CFLAGS aren't blending my performance at all. At irc #gentoo I was told no to use them but apparently by merely putting those sse, mmx USE flags don't make any impact, because I see mplayer using like 50% 60% of cpu. I am also confirming this issue with those forums blender and how they tested glibc and blender with and without those CFLAGS. But next time I recompile the entire system I'll set distcc because it takes insanely long with a crappy p3 1133MHz
thanks _________________ I am a luser :'-( |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luser99 n00b
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: go back to 3.4.x |
|
|
krigav wrote: | Running GCC 4.1 with Glibc 2.3.6 and KDE 3.5.2 without any issues. So far everything emerged just fine.
So far I can't see any noticeable speed up. too. |
Perhaps if you emerge everything back to gcc 3.4.x right now you'll notice the difference. Let's us know about it!! _________________ I am a luser :'-( |
|
Back to top |
|
|
krigav Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 121
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: go back to 3.4.x |
|
|
luser99 wrote: | krigav wrote: | Running GCC 4.1 with Glibc 2.3.6 and KDE 3.5.2 without any issues. So far everything emerged just fine.
So far I can't see any noticeable speed up. too. |
Perhaps if you emerge everything back to gcc 3.4.x right now you'll notice the difference. Let's us know about it!! |
My previous gentoo installation was compiled with GCC 3.4.5, and wasn't remarkable faster than my current system (of course this is just my subjective feeling, I haven't made any measurements!), beside the fact that the compilation times with GCC 3.4 seemed to be shorter. But these aren't very important for me. _________________ There are no dumb questions, just dumb answers. So please help users that are new to linux/gentoo by answering unanswered questions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: go back to 3.4.x |
|
|
krigav wrote: |
My previous gentoo installation was compiled with GCC 3.4.5, and wasn't remarkable faster than my current system (of course this is just my subjective feeling, I haven't made any measurements!), beside the fact that the compilation times with GCC 3.4 seemed to be shorter. But these aren't very important for me. |
I second it... and I tried to use -ftree-vectorize with mozilla/seamonkey (not a Gentoo package), but then seamonkey aborts with segfault. So I removed it and using the default optimization, seamonkey worked perfectly. So vectorization is still buggy with gcc-4.1.0.
I was seriously considering going back to gcc-3.4.x, but it takes time.... I will get along with gcc-4.1.0! When I want to make a program faster, I usually use Intel compiler, which makes much faster binaries than gcc-4.1.0. Now I use it for seti@home, xine, xmms, scilab, etc..... especially seti@home built with icc is twice as fast as gcc-3.4.x.
And that icc is free for Linux. Now I got icc/ifort beta licenses and am trying them. They are really nice. _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luser99 n00b
Joined: 11 Apr 2006 Posts: 27
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: Re: go back to 3.4.x |
|
|
maverick6664 wrote: | krigav wrote: |
My previous gentoo installation was compiled with GCC 3.4.5, and wasn't remarkable faster than my current system (of course this is just my subjective feeling, I haven't made any measurements!), beside the fact that the compilation times with GCC 3.4 seemed to be shorter. But these aren't very important for me. |
I second it... and I tried to use -ftree-vectorize with mozilla/seamonkey (not a Gentoo package), but then seamonkey aborts with segfault. So I removed it and using the default optimization, seamonkey worked perfectly. So vectorization is still buggy with gcc-4.1.0.
I was seriously considering going back to gcc-3.4.x, but it takes time.... I will get along with gcc-4.1.0! When I want to make a program faster, I usually use Intel compiler, which makes much faster binaries than gcc-4.1.0. Now I use it for seti@home, xine, xmms, scilab, etc..... especially seti@home built with icc is twice as fast as gcc-3.4.x.
And that icc is free for Linux. Now I got icc/ifort beta licenses and am trying them. They are really nice. |
That's sound more like a selfish act without any sort of contribution to open source community and projects. If I were you I would stick to gcc and drop intel. _________________ I am a luser :'-( |
|
Back to top |
|
|
FastTurtle Guru
Joined: 03 Sep 2002 Posts: 479 Location: Flakey Shake & Bake Caliornia, USA
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: Appears to build faster on older hardware |
|
|
I'm in the middle of a Jackass 1/3 install using gcc-4.1 and kde-3.5.2 and the one thing I've noticed so far is it actually appears to be building slightly faster then many others have reported.
The one fact that I think is making the difference is the elimination of all new options
my current make.conf Code: | CFLAGS="-Os -march=i686 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
USE="3dnow acpi arts cups dbus -gnome hal kde kdeenablefinal mmx nptlonly qt sse symlink usb"
RSYNC_TIMEOUT=30
MAKEOPTS="-j2"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
FEATURES="-strict sandbox userpriv usersandbox" |
If you notice, I've stuck with the generic i686 CPU and added in the various flags available for my Athlon-xp 1800 in the use flags. I've also stuck with my personal default of -Os as it has always seemed to build slightly smaller code.
My only benchmark is the double -e system rebuild needed for gcc-4.1 as that only took 12 hours total. According to my logs, such a rebuild of the toolchain using 3.4.3 would take 8 hours per pass for 16+ hours all together. So a 4 hour decrease is surely something to crow about. As to how many apps are going to be problematic, I can't say as yet but I'll surely update once I complete the install this weekend. _________________ AsRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4
128GB 3200 Mhz memory
4x 4TB Sata - 2x 2TB Sata SSD - 4x 450GB SaS - 3x 900GB SaS - 72GB SaS for Boot
LSI 9211-8i in HBA mode for all of the SaS drives
Radeon 6800 (Non XT) for GPU |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:18 am Post subject: Re: go back to 3.4.x |
|
|
luser99 wrote: | That's sound more like a selfish act without any sort of contribution to open source community and projects. If I were you I would stick to gcc and drop intel. |
Now that Intel compiler is freely obtainable, I don't care. Even if gcc is open source, I have never hacked it or even seen the source of gcc, while I have ever hacked the source of Linux kernel. When I found a bug of icc or encountered a trouble, I report it to Intel's support and it usually solves it or fixes compiler.
I'm just pursueng the better and see no reason to stick to gcc. I'll use whichever looks better case by case. _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
brteag00 n00b
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 1 Location: Madison, WI
|
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:07 am Post subject: GCC/Glibc upgrade experiences |
|
|
I read through this thread and decided to take the plunge and switch to GCC 4.1 / Glibc 2.4. I run an older system (2xPIII 933, 768 Mb RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 5500). Almost all of my software is "stable" (ie, not testing) with the exception of modular X. Overall, the upgrade was fairly painless, though there was some babysitting involved.
My CFLAGS: -O2 -march=pentium3 -mtune=pentium3 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe -fweb -ftree-vectorize
My procedure (after unmasking the appropriate packages):
1) emerge gcc (built glibc as a dependency)
2) emerge binutils
3) emerge glibc (now built with gcc 4.1)
4) emerge -e system
5) emerge -e world
6) recompile the gentoo-sources kernel and appropriate add-on modules
Observations:
-- The above took right at 3 days to accomplish, which is about as long as previous GCC upgrades have been.
-- I updated my portage tree to get glibc-2.4-r1, so I didn't get bitten by the trouble that others were seeing.
-- A number of packages did not compile during emerge -e world. All of them were fixed with the ~x86 keyword, though.
-- I encountered three packages that don't like -ftree-vectorize: zlib, pango and pycrypto. The first two caused firefox to crash on startup (though gdb indicated that the crash was in the libraries, not in firefox). The third kept giving me SHA256 hash mismatches when I would try to emerge new packages.
Conclusion: I run an older system, and it is noticeably more responsive after the upgrade. I didn't trash my install, and most of it remained working during the upgrade. I consider this a success. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Halcy0n Developer
Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 1682 Location: Freehold, NJ
|
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
-ftree-vectorize is still very sensitive. I wouldn't recommend using it on your entire system, and if you do expect any of the fun that comes along with it. I still recommend the simple yet effective "-march=yourarch -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" _________________ Mark Loeser
http://www.halcy0n.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Halcy0n wrote: | -ftree-vectorize is still very sensitive. I wouldn't recommend using it on your entire system, and if you do expect any of the fun that comes along with it. I still recommend the simple yet effective "-march=yourarch -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" |
I agree. When I built mozilla nightly build from cvs with -ftree-vectorize, mozilla/seamonkey dumped core. With "-O2 -march=prescott -mfpmath=sse" (I forgot -fomit-frame-pointer!!), it works very nicely.
So in make.conf, I set CFLAGS="-O2 -march=prescott -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe". In packages where accuracy is necessary, some options such as -mfpmath=sse are stripped, so this works for me.
And I found in floating point gcc-4.1.0 with -O option is less accurate than gcc-3.4.5 with -O and icc with -mp/-mp1 option. And that gcc-4.1.0 with -O is slower than icc with -mp1. So I compile scilab (scientific application) with Intel compilers and get much faster speed and better accuracy (but I don't measure accuracy with scilab). In order to derive the best performance, both speed and accuracy, Intel compilers are better than gcc 4.1. But for generic use, gcc-4.1.0 is the best for now.
I use paranoia (available at http://www.netlib.org/paranoia/) to measure floating point accuracy of a compiler.
regards,
-Tetsuji _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
radfoj Guru
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 490 Location: Tísek, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After reading this topic I tried migrate to gcc-4.1.0. Everything went fine (reemerging system + world), so I am wondering, why its still hardmasked. Are there still any pitfalls?
But what is not clear enough for me, what about old gcc-version - is it safe to remove it?
Code: | # gcc-config -l
[1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5
[2] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardened
[3] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopie
[4] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopiessp
[5] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednossp
[6] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.0 * |
Code: | $ eix libstdc++
* sys-libs/libstdc++-v3
Available versions: ~3.3.3-r1 3.3.4 ~3.3.6
Installed: 3.3.6
Homepage: http://gcc.gnu.org/libstdc++/
Description: Compatibility package for running binaries linked against a pre gcc 3.4 libstdc++
* virtual/libstdc++
Available versions: 3.3
Installed: 3.3
Homepage: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/
Description: Virtual for the GNU Standard C++ Library
|
Dont want to break something and dont want to have anything unneeded. Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sirdilznik l33t
Joined: 28 Apr 2005 Posts: 731
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
radfoj wrote: | After reading this topic I tried migrate to gcc-4.1.0. Everything went fine (reemerging system + world), so I am wondering, why its still hardmasked. |
Halcy0n wrote: | HyperQuantum wrote: |
I'm eager to switch to gcc 4.1, but I want to wait until it is unmasked and enters the testing branch. Anyone here who knows when that will happen? I am a bit reluctant about using masked packages. |
I plan on doing it pretty soon. I want to get a few more apps ported (there aren't many left), before I do it. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
maverick6664 Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005 Posts: 413 Location: Tokyo / Japan
|
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
radfoj wrote: | After reading this topic I tried migrate to gcc-4.1.0. Everything went fine (reemerging system + world), so I am wondering, why its still hardmasked. Are there still any pitfalls? |
maybe because blender has a problem as luser says? _________________ Tetsuji Rai
a.k.a. Lukiest in the world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AxisDigital n00b
Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 11:28 pm Post subject: My experiences with GCC 4.1.0 |
|
|
So, I un-hard-masked and keyworded GCC 4.1.0 and I'm trying to use it to upgrade my computer from GCC 3.4.5
The system primarily runs XFCE 4 with an assorted mishmash of others, and has (according to the emerge logs) 475 packages on it to upgrade.
Pentium II 333 Mhz
256 MB RAM
*GCC 4.1 and emerge system compile perfectly
*I fell prey to the bug in Portage-2.0.54-r1 that makes emerge -e resume from the beginning, TWICE... (not GCC's fault, just really, really annoying) I see it's stable now; once the updates complete I'll remove it from my package mask.
The following packages will not compile:
gtkhtml-1.1.10-r1 - not solved, but gtkhtml-3.8.2 works. I assume this is for gtk+ 1 apps?
gtk-perl-0.7009-r2 - failed the first time I tried, worked later
lyx-1.3.5-r2 - unresolved as yet. The changelogs (Gentoo's or theirs) say nothing about GCC 4.1 compliance... hmm.
x11-wm/fluxbox-0.9.14-r1 - solved by upgrading to the ~x86 version 0.9.15.1
dev-libs/nss-3.9.2-r2 - solved by upgrading to the ~x86 version 3.11-r1
dev-lang/swig-1.3.21 - solved by upgrading to the ~x86 version 1.3.25
x11-misc/xfractint-20.4.00 - solved by upgrading to the ~x86 version 20.4.03
media-libs/glide-v3-3.10-r4 - unsolved; I realized the computer's video card was a Cirrus Logic, not a Voodoo so I removed glide.
This is just a list of programs that won't compile. I don't know how many work yet (I'm assuming all, right?)
games-strategy/wesnoth-1.0.2 - failed because I compiled sdl without sound support (the computer has no soundcard, but I figured I could still have the game.
And for reference, my system specs:
Code: | Portage 2.0.54-r2 (default-linux/x86/2005.0, gcc-4.1.0, glibc-2.3.6-r3, 2.6.15-gentoo-r1 i686)
=================================================================
System uname: 2.6.15-gentoo-r1 i686 Pentium II (Deschutes)
Gentoo Base System version 1.6.14
dev-lang/python: 2.4.3-r1
dev-util/ccache: [Not Present]
dev-util/confcache: [Not Present]
sys-apps/sandbox: 1.2.12
sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r7
sys-devel/automake: 1.4_p6, 1.5, 1.6.3, 1.7.9-r1, 1.8.5-r3, 1.9.6-r1
sys-devel/binutils: 2.16.1
sys-devel/libtool: 1.4.3-r4, 1.5.22
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.11-r2
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
CBUILD="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CFLAGS="-march=pentium2 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/env /usr/kde/3.4/share/config /usr/kde/3.4/shutdown /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/lib/X11/xkb /usr/lib/mozilla/defaults/pref /usr/share/config /usr/share/texmf/dvipdfm/config/ /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/ /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/config/ /usr/share/texmf/tex/platex/config/ /usr/share/texmf/xdvi/ /var/qmail/control"
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/eselect/compiler /etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d"
CXXFLAGS="-march=pentium2 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
FEATURES="autoconfig distlocks sandbox sfperms strict"
GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://distfiles.gentoo.org http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/distributions/gentoo"
LANG="en_US.UTF-8"
PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp"
PORTDIR="/usr/portage"
SYNC="rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
USE="X aalib apm avi berkdb bitmap-fonts bonobo bzip2 cli crypt cups curl doc dri eds emacs emboss encode exif expat fam foomaticdb fortran gd gif glut gmp gpm gtk gtk2 gtkhtml hal idn imagemagick imlib ipv6 isdnlog java jpeg lcms ldap libg++ libwww mmx mng motif mozilla mpeg mysql ncurses nls nptl opengl pam pcre pdflib perl plotutils png pnp pppd python qt quicktime readline recode reflection samba sasl sdl session slang slp socks5 spell spl ssl svga tcltk tcpd tetex tiff truetype truetype-fonts type1-fonts udev usb wmf x86 xml xml2 xorg xv xvid zlib userland_GNU kernel_linux elibc_glibc"
Unset: ASFLAGS, CTARGET, INSTALL_MASK, LC_ALL, LDFLAGS, LINGUAS, MAKEOPTS, PORTDIR_OVERLAY
|
I was also considering switching it to X.org 7, KDE 3.5.2 components and Firefox 1.5, but I think I'll be lucky if the switch to GCC 4 works.
As a general aside, I wrote the output of emerge -epv world to a file so I could check where I am in the (lengthy) process by just finding out what it was doing now (ps -ef). The order of packages has changed since I started the process last week, and I don't really know why. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WizMaster n00b
Joined: 08 Apr 2006 Posts: 19
|
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:09 am Post subject: Re: My experiences with GCC 4.1.0 |
|
|
AxisDigital wrote: |
I was also considering switching it to X.org 7, KDE 3.5.2 components and Firefox 1.5, but I think I'll be lucky if the switch to GCC 4 works.
|
Just finishing up my rebuild. Hope Openoffice doesn't crap out. Modular X seemed to compile fine with GCC 4.1. Haven't tried Firefox 1.5.x or KDE 3.5.x yet but I doubt it will cause problems. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
radfoj Guru
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 490 Location: Tísek, Czech Republic
|
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
radfoj wrote: | But what is not clear enough for me, what about old gcc-version - is it safe to remove it? |
When nobody warned me, I removed old gcc version and no problems at all:
Code: | # gcc-config -l
[1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.0 *
|
Yeasterday I upgraded to 4.1.0-r1 also without problem. Thanks, good work, guys |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matteo Azzali Retired Dev
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 1133
|
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't posted here the link to gentoo bugzilla? Sorry, HERE you can see which
packages actually have an opened bugreport (some of these have a patch to test) out of the 100'000+ in portage (the marked ones are closed) _________________ Every day a new distro comes to birth. Every day a distro "eats" another.
If you're born distro, no matter what, start to run.
---- http://www.linuxprinting.org/ ---- http://tuxmobil.org/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AxisDigital n00b
Joined: 08 Jun 2005 Posts: 32 Location: Atlanta, GA
|
Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, my system finished compiling with no other problems. I'm now updating a few packages to their latest versions (in particular, gentoo-sources and gcc-4.1). Having restarted X, I can confirm that X.org 6.8.2-r7, XFCE 4.2.3 and Firefox 1.0.8 all work fine when compiled with GCC 4.1
I still have yet to find which program on my system requires gtkhtml-1.1.10; none of them seem to and the equery seems to have stalled (23 hours running without finding anything, and I just killed it). I'll let you know if lyx works out, and I guess I'll file a bug if it doesn't.
I've decided against Firefox 1.5 because it sounds like it wouldn't be stable even if it DID manage to compile properly.
I may still try X.org 7; that'd be a more important transition to make than just Firefox.
Overall, I'd say GCC 4.1 is relatively safe (provided you don't mind keywording a couple packages, and don't have any of the rare packages that don't work yet). I don't know yet if it's worth while. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|