Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
make.conf for Pentium M
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Installing Gentoo
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
liushidai
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:28 am    Post subject: make.conf for Pentium M Reply with quote

Hi there,

I just got a new laptop dell 700M (Pentium M 755 2.0G FBS400Hz, 1G ram).

As HERE points out, the pentium M processor's features are not fully supported by gcc. What's the best make.conf setting I can have for the laptop? I need good performance with tolerable stability. No bleeding edge softwares is all right.

I'm thinking 2005.0 and updating the system with gentoo releases. And I may compile a few but not many softwares from scratch as well. Compiling everything from scratch is too much for the laptop, isn't it? Please post your suggestions. Thank you.

Best regards,
Shidai
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ekutay
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 636
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

you could start with
Code:
-mtune=pentium-m
For everything else, read through the many available docs and threads.
I have compiled everything from the scratch, and it was definitely a pleasure for my laptop. :)
_________________
-- erol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ekutay
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 636
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is funny too: http://www.pixelbeat.org/scripts/gcccpuopt
_________________
-- erol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SinoTech
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 2579
Location: Neunkirchen / Saarland / Germany

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Take a look at this site.

Mfg

Sino
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
96140
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Posts: 1324

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you use any version of gcc 3.4, rather than the default 3.3.5, you will have full support for Pentium M; you can use CFLAGS like -march=pentium-m and -mtune=pentium-m.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ekutay
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 636
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
gcc-config -l
shows your available gcc versions.
_________________
-- erol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
liushidai
n00b
n00b


Joined: 17 May 2004
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You guys are awesome!!!

Well if gcc >3.4 fully supports Pentium M then I may start from stage 1:-) It's worth the wait. BTW, which one do you recommend, 2005.0 or latest? I'm afraid latest snapshot may be unstale, is this the case? Many thanks.

-- Shidai
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ekutay
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 636
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

liushidai wrote:
It's worth the wait. BTW, which one do you recommend, 2005.0 or latest?

As far as I remember 2005.0 was on gcc-3.3.5 or something like this. I switched to ~x86 and got gcc-3.4. If you use 2005.0 thus emerge 3.4 first, switch your configuration using gcc-config and go on from here with stage 1 and friends. Dunno about the latest snapshots.
_________________
-- erol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldner2
n00b
n00b


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How can you install 3.4 then? They're all masked by -*?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ekutay
l33t
l33t


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 636
Location: Berlin

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jan-Ove! ;)

On ~x86 the actual gcc-version is IMHO gcc-3.4.4.
Quote:
erol@mutlu:~ > gcc --version [18:25]
gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (Gentoo 3.4.4, ssp-3.4.4-1.0, pie-8.7.8)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Otherwise you can set it in /etc/portage/package.keywords, if you really need this cflag.
_________________
-- erol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldner2
n00b
n00b


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ekutay wrote:
Jan-Ove! ;)


Damn right. :D

Quote:

On ~x86 the actual gcc-version is IMHO gcc-3.4.4.
Quote:
erol@mutlu:~ > gcc --version [18:25]
gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (Gentoo 3.4.4, ssp-3.4.4-1.0, pie-8.7.8)
Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.


Otherwise you can set it in /etc/portage/package.keywords, if you really need this cflag.


Thanx! 3.4.4 worked fine, my bad. :oops:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hauser
l33t
l33t


Joined: 27 Dec 2003
Posts: 650
Location: 4-dimensional hyperplane

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is what I use for my 700m "-O2 -march=pentium-m -fomit-frame-pointer".
I compiled the system (base+KDE+OO) on my desktop before the laptop arrived. Then I tarred the system up and transferred it onto the laptop, recompiled the kernel, did some configurations. That was 6 months ago and I'm quite happy about the result.:)
Here's a relevant thread:https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-279395-highlight-dell+700m.html
_________________
AMD Athlon XP 2600+; 512M RAM;
nVidia FX5700LE; Hitachi 120Gb
2.6.9-nitro4, reiser4, linux26-headers+nptl

Do I like to compile everything?
Positive definite!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is what I use:
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=pentium-m -march=pentium-m -pipe -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse \
-fomit-frame-pointer -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers \
-O2 -Os -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-loops \
-fno-align-labels -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Waldner2
n00b
n00b


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ansient wrote:
Here is what I use:
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=pentium-m -march=pentium-m -pipe -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse \
-fomit-frame-pointer -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers \
-O2 -Os -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-loops \
-fno-align-labels -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays"


What does all this actually do?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RTFM ;)
Code:
man gcc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Veldrin
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Jul 2004
Posts: 1945
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... -O2 -Os ...

what does this exactly do? IIRC only the last optimisation will be applied....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Veldrin wrote:
Quote:
... -O2 -Os ...

what does this exactly do? IIRC only the last optimisation will be applied....

Correct. The last optimization actually passed to gcc.

Ebuilds can strip flags unintelligently. Specifically, some poorly written ebuilds still strip -Os but will allow -O2. In that event, the -fno's emulate -Os as closely as possible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dundas
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 317
Location: China, Earth

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear all:

1.
How about celeron M, I have a celeron M 330 1.4GHz 512k L2 400 FSB, should I use the settings for pentium2 ? and the arch. for i386?i686?

2.
And during my installation using stage3 universal CD, I can't find any profiles of either gcc 3.3 or 3.4, but I'll carry on to see, however, if I really want to use gcc 3.4, what should I do?

thx for any advices!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Use the same as you would for a pentium M

2. https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-319349.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dundas
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Posts: 317
Location: China, Earth

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks ansient for your fast response:

I'll carry on wiz your advices!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Vegas Baby!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ansient wrote:
Here is what I use:
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=pentium-m -march=pentium-m -pipe -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse \
-fomit-frame-pointer -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers \
-O2 -Os -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-loops \
-fno-align-labels -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays"


Do you even know what a third of those flags do? I'm surprised you haven't hit issues yet. Those are some pretty aggressive flags. Why would you need them?

In short, the more aggressive your cflags are, the more potential for issues you'll have later. Keep cflags short is my advice.

Code:
CFLAGS="-march=pentium-m -pipe -mmx -fomit-frame-pointer -O2
will do you justice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo wrote:
ansient wrote:
Here is what I use:
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=pentium-m -march=pentium-m -pipe -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse \
-fomit-frame-pointer -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers \
-O2 -Os -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-loops \
-fno-align-labels -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays"
Do you even know what a third of those flags do? I'm surprised you haven't hit issues yet. Those are some pretty aggressive flags. Why would you need them?

Yes, I know what each and every one does. Specifically which do you think are aggressive?

(I carefully chose non-aggressive flags, so this should be interesting)

Quote:
In short, the more aggressive your cflags are, the more potential for issues you'll have later. Keep cflags short is my advice.

Length has no direct corelation to aggressiveness :|
Quote:
Code:
CFLAGS="-march=pentium-m -pipe -mmx -fomit-frame-pointer -O2
will do you justice.

Asside from the omission of the sse stuff, that's not much different from mine.

1. You aren't using -frename-registers (the only negative effect is to break debugging, but *-omit-frame-pointer already does that on x86, so why the hell not use this flag as well?)
2. You default to -O2 instead of -Os (I think laptops benefit the most strongly from -Os, but whatever)
3. You're not using -momit-leaf-frame-pointer (which anyone will tell you is just as safe as the -fomit-frame-pointer)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Vegas Baby!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ansient wrote:
Ateo wrote:
ansient wrote:
Here is what I use:
Code:
CFLAGS="-mtune=pentium-m -march=pentium-m -pipe -mmmx -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse \
-fomit-frame-pointer -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers \
-O2 -Os -fno-align-functions -fno-align-jumps -fno-align-loops \
-fno-align-labels -fno-reorder-blocks -fno-prefetch-loop-arrays"
Do you even know what a third of those flags do? I'm surprised you haven't hit issues yet. Those are some pretty aggressive flags. Why would you need them?

Yes, I know what each and every one does. Specifically which do you think are aggressive?

(I carefully chose non-aggressive flags, so this should be interesting)

Quote:
In short, the more aggressive your cflags are, the more potential for issues you'll have later. Keep cflags short is my advice.

Length has no direct corelation to aggressiveness :|
Quote:
Code:
CFLAGS="-march=pentium-m -pipe -mmx -fomit-frame-pointer -O2
will do you justice.

Asside from the omission of the sse stuff, that's not much different from mine.

1. You aren't using -frename-registers (the only negative effect is to break debugging, but *-omit-frame-pointer already does that on x86, so why the hell not use this flag as well?)
2. You default to -O2 instead of -Os (I think laptops benefit the most strongly from -Os, but whatever)
3. You're not using -momit-leaf-frame-pointer (which anyone will tell you is just as safe as the -fomit-frame-pointer)


Well, in my experience with trying various flags, these in particular have given me issues
Code:
-momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers


1. So if -omit-frame-pointer already breaks debugging, why would you need/want a 2nd flag that does the same thing?

2. As far as -Os, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any real benifit. Care to elaborate?

3. Again, why use one flag when another flag already provides?

My primary point. Using redundant flags is pointless and causes severe headaches. But to each their own.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ansient
Guru
Guru


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 445
Location: Argentina

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ateo wrote:
Well, in my experience with trying various flags, these in particular have given me issues
Code:
-momit-leaf-frame-pointer -funit-at-a-time -frename-registers

Are you serious? I've been using those flags since gcc 3.4.0, they've never given me any trouble whatsoever.

Ateo wrote:
ansient wrote:
1. You aren't using -frename-registers (the only negative effect is to break debugging, but *-omit-frame-pointer already does that on x86, so why the hell not use this flag as well?)
2. You default to -O2 instead of -Os (I think laptops benefit the most strongly from -Os, but whatever)
3. You're not using -momit-leaf-frame-pointer (which anyone will tell you is just as safe as the -fomit-frame-pointer)

1. So if -omit-frame-pointer already breaks debugging, why would you need/want a 2nd flag that does the same thing?
2. As far as -Os, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any real benifit. Care to elaborate?
3. Again, why use one flag when another flag already provides?

1. Dude, the goal is not to break debugging... that is the consequence. Each flag has different positive effects, and in no way "do the same thing".
2. I think small binaries is good for laptops. Less disk access, less memory usage (more left over for disk cache), etc. But like I said, whatever.
3. Again, they do differnet things. Read the man gcc descriptions :|
Quote:
My primary point. Using redundant flags is pointless and causes severe headaches. But to each their own.
Small binaries are good

Erm, none of the flags are redundant except perhaps "-O2 -Os". But I have good reasons for doing that, and gcc clearly states that the last -O flag overrides any previous ones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ateo
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 2022
Location: Vegas Baby!

PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who said it's goal was to break debugging? I surely didn't. I short, I said, why use one flag when another one does the same thing?

Also, I should have been clear in saying an "aggressive string of cflags", not individual cflags as each one has a specific purpose.

Sigh. Again, you're missing my point but that's ok. You're set with your flags and that's fine... Perhaps you have your reasons but why would you ever give those flags to a new linux user? As if they don't already have issues with needing to learn basics you throw in something completely over their heads....

So if -O overrides the previous (which I did know) why would you need -O flags if the first one is omitted? It just doesn't make sense.

My advice to new users is a short cflag string. I wouldn't want to add any more difficulty for them especially when packages start to not compile. But that's just me...

Thanks for the tidbit of new info.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Installing Gentoo All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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