| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Skorgu
n00b
Joined: 10 Sep 2003
Posts: 39
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think I must be missing something, did the links for the overlay change? http://snigel.no-ip.com/~nxsty/linux/glibc-overlay.tar.bz2 is a 0-byte file (!). All the mirrors in the first post also point to (the same?  ) zero-byte file.
_________________
"I paid for four wheels, make 'em all drive" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
taylorpendley
n00b
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yeah i downloaded it about 8 hours ago and it worked fine but i was going to come home tonight and redownload it so i could bootstrap this system overnight and the links dont work which means i wont be able to get anything done tonight..........................>>ANGERRRRRRRRRRRRRR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've no idea what happened to it. I used ark to pack it and konqueror to upload it instead of tar and ncftp as I use to so that's probablyt why. Anyway I uploaded it again. It'll take a while before it reaches the mirrors.
Last edited by nxsty on Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enderandrew
l33t
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 731
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm having the exact same issue as nesl247, for what it is worth.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taylorpendley
n00b
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sorry about my last post..............it was kinda mean. This patch is great. I CANNOT emerge the regular glibc. I get the "TLS required" error with 2.3.6, 2.3.6-r1, 2.3.6-r2 and no matter what i try i havent been able to get it fixed, so i downloaded this overlay and it emerged perfectly the first time which is great because without it i cant use gentoo. Just wanted to say thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taylorpendley
n00b
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| IT WORKS.......................THANKS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taylorpendley
n00b
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 41
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doh................now it doesnt work again, lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amax
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 76
Location: Russia, Novosibirsk (Silicon Taiga)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StringCheesian
l33t
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 887
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh great, so all this time my system hasn't actually been using it.
Does that environment variable cause problems for anyone else?
I shutdown KDE, set that environment variable, and tried startx. It didn't work. Here's the end of /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old: | Code: | Could not init font path element /usr/share/fonts/TTF, removing from list!
Could not init font path element /usr/share/fonts/urw-fonts, removing from list!
Could not init font path element /usr/share/fonts/Type1, removing from list!
Could not init font path element /usr/share/fonts/misc, removing from list!
Fatal server error:
could not open default font 'fixed' |
I unset the environment variable and X starts fine again.
All of Xorg 7.0 and anything I've upgraded recently has been compiled with LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,-Bdirect".
I'm using binutils-2.16.1-r1 from portage and nxsty's glibc-2.3.6-r1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
immudium
Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 332
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Does that environment variable cause problems for anyone else? |
Hmm, I've been wondering about that environment variable for a while. It doesn't seem to be talked about much. Like you pointed out they talk about it in the bug report, but I don't pretend to understand what it implies exactly as far as making full use of -Bdirect. I have it set in my .bash_profile but I'm not sure if it needs to be set in a more global way. In either case, with it set in .bash_profile and having recompiled my world with -Bdirect, I haven't noticed any problems with it running X, but I am using nxsty's monolithic 6.9 build so I'm not sure it makes much use of -Bdirect not having to load as many modular dependencies. Also, I'm not exactly sure how to quantify any speed improvement I am seeing. Just eye balling, yes, I would say things startup a little bit snappier, but is there a more scientific way to tell? Is there some way to have a script start a gui app like firefox or ooffice and then immediately kill it such that it would give you an accurate time measurement of startup time? Otherwise it's inaccurate because it depends on how fast you can click the close button to get a time reading. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anyone get any gecko based programs (thunderbird, sunbird, firefox) to compile yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
StringCheesian
l33t
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 887
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| immudium wrote: | | Quote: | | Does that environment variable cause problems for anyone else? |
[...]In either case, with it set in .bash_profile and having recompiled my world with -Bdirect [...] |
Ok, maybe I should try recompiling everything with -Bdirect.
EDIT: It worked! I did a new installation following the Conrad Install Guide (except with safer CFLAGS), and now xorg starts up fine with LD_BIND_DIRECT set!
Last edited by StringCheesian on Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:56 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pussi
l33t
Joined: 08 May 2004
Posts: 727
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xorg 7.0 didn't start here either with that environmet variable set, but I put export LD_BIND_DIRECT=1 in my .xinitrc, which is basically the same to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nesl247 wrote: | | Anyone get any gecko based programs (thunderbird, sunbird, firefox) to compile yet? |
OpenSuse and Fedora är building firefox and thunderbird against 2.3.90 so they might have some usefull patches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alright still not building and everything has changed so any ideas? You know more about these patches than I do.
Update: Mozilla has a patch for this already. Applying it to firefox and testing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
immudium
Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 332
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nesl247 wrote: | Alright still not building and everything has changed so any ideas? You know more about these patches than I do.
Update: Mozilla has a patch for this already. Applying it to firefox and testing. |
Hmm, I'm building both firefox and thunderbird fine on the latest 2.3.90 without any special patches on both x86 and amd64 arches with gcc 4.0.2. I even recompiled both just to double check. Are they gcc 4.1 specific errors maybe? Would a toolchain rebuild with emwrap or equivalent help? Just trying to come up with some ideas... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No clue. It is building fine with the patch (had to modify it though). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SimedonMyrrho
n00b
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@nxsty:
The glibc-2.3.90 with extra-patches-1.9 also did build quite well with linux-headers-2.6.15 (with the rc6 patches which are in portage) with gcc-4.1.20060120, and runs fine, as far as i can tell. I have also incorporated the patches for -Wl,hashval and dynsort. Binutils were also patched, i used the patches from the bugzilla thread.
I did rebuild quite a large part of my system, some packages failed with as-needed, but the rest is just fine, your tweaked qt also. Today i hope i can compile kde-stuff from 3.5.1, with not so much to be seen, ah, i mean -fvisibility-hidden, bdirect and friends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
immudium
Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 332
Location: Utah
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nesl247 wrote: | | No clue. It is building fine with the patch (had to modify it though). |
@nesl247
OK, I was finally able to reproduce (I think) the problem you were having. It seems to be an x86 issue only and not x86_64 which is why 2.3.90 builds mozilla stuff fine on amd64. On the x86 machine I tried it on, I was actually using the 2.3.6 overlay not the 2.3.90. Sorry about that. Anyway, after updating my test x86 machine to 2.3.90 and gcc-4.1-20060127, I bumped into an issue saying something about JB_BP not being exported. I'm assuming this is the same issue you had and the fix I found for the bug was at: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=323853 And to get it to patch cleanly for me, I simply prepended mozilla to each of the files referenced in the patch to make it portage compliant so | Code: | | xpcom/base/nsStackFrameUnix.cpp |
becomes
| Code: | | mozilla/xpcom/base/nsStackFrameUnix.cpp |
and so on...
Is that basically the same problem and resolution you followed? Anyway, maybe it will be useful for someone in the future should they try 2.3.90 on x86. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I modified the patch a tiny bit. It wouldn't apply correctly but I do have it working now. As soon as cheater comes back on I will be getting ftp info from him and will host the overlay for anyone with the problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matobsk
n00b
Joined: 16 Oct 2005
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I tried the overlay about a month ago, and I loved the performance increase until the snapshot went from 20051211 to 20060102, that snapshot had some compiling errors for my system.
So I was also stupid enough not to quickpkg my older glibc, and I ended up rebuilding my entire system from a stage tarball. Trying to sift through the GLIBC_2.4 missing links got to me. (I knew downgrading glibc was a bad thing to do to begin with)
Anyway, I want to know how everyone here is 'playing' with this new snapshot without b0rking systems. Is it actually possible to quickpkg my 2.3.6-* glibc and jump back and forth? (My previous experience says no, but I may have overlooked something.)
Or are you all running on chroot environments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nxsty
Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| matobsk wrote: | | Anyway, I want to know how everyone here is 'playing' with this new snapshot without b0rking systems. Is it actually possible to quickpkg my 2.3.6-* glibc and jump back and forth? (My previous experience says no, but I may have overlooked something.) |
It should work if you don't build anything against the new glibc and then downgrade. But I can't promise it wont break. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Do not! downgrade glibc. Already did it and it ended in a start over.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrakashP
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 1249
Location: C.C.A.A., Germania
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BTW, I noticed this on AMD64 w/ latest glibc: (using -Bdirect) If using kwrite with enabled plugins, it crashes on closing when some text was loaded and edited. Anyone else experiencing the same? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nesl247
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, one final question about -Bdirect. Does anyone using -Bdirect get the following errors:
| Code: | Warning - strange error on '__gmon_start__': 0x474 0x0
Warning - strange error on 'dlopen@GLIBC_2.1': 0x476 0x0
Warning - strange error on 'strcpy@GLIBC_2.0': 0x478 0x0 |
There are a ton more like that. None of them are fatal however. This is caused by this part in the patch for binutils-2.16.91.0.5-r2 (in bugzilla)
| Code: | + if (direct_sec)
+ {
+ unsigned long d_idx = isym - isymbuf;
+ /* FIXME: does bfd_elf_get_elf_syms read dynsym or the symbol
+ table ? */
+ d_idx += extsymoff;
+ d_idx *= 2;
+ if (d_idx > bfd_get_section_size (direct_sec))
+ fprintf (stderr, "Warning - strange error on '%s': 0x%x 0x%x\n",
+ h->root.root.string, (int)d_idx,
+ (int)bfd_get_section_size (direct_sec));
+ else
+ {
+ unsigned int direct_entry;
+ direct_entry = bfd_get_16 (abfd, direct_data + d_idx);
+ if ((direct_entry & DT_SUSE_DIRECT_VAGUE))
+ h->vague_ref = 1;
+ if (!h->vague_ref &&
+ (direct_entry & DT_SUSE_DIRECT_MASK) != DT_SUSE_DIRECT_UNKNOWN)
+ h->concrete_ref = 1;
+#if 0
+ fprintf (stderr, "symbol '%s': %s direct entry 0x%x (index %d) section '%s' : '%s'\n",
+ h->root.root.string,
+ h->vague_ref ? "vague " : h->concrete_ref ? "concrete" : "unknown",
+ direct_entry, (int)d_idx/2,
+ new_sec ? new_sec->name : "<nosec>",
+ new_sec && new_sec->owner ? new_sec->owner->filename : "<noownername>");
+#endif
+ }
+ } |
My ldflags are | Code: | | LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--sort-common -Wl,-Bdirect" |
I am using the glibc 2.3.90.x if that helps, but it seems to be something with -Bdirect and the binutils and glibc is the only other thing related to that as far as I know so I was just wondering. If this is a binutils problem I will create a thread about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Unsupported Software
