Extreme CFLAGS problems...

Message

mcspiff · Post by **mcspiff** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:12 pm

I think it helps to remeber that the people with the nuts CFLAGS will ask for support anyways, no matter how many big warning signs are put up because their brother's-friend's-tax driver's-prostitute says that having a 5 lines of CFlags will make your box %0.0025 faster while still being %100 stables and that bug they found most obviously be in glibc, couldnt possibly be the Cflags. Then the dev's must deal with them regardless. If you like being able to set your Cflags at all, support the devs in making their lives easier. You owe them, not the other way around.

charlieg · Post by **charlieg** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:47 pm

Pango (1.8.1) doesn't compile with CFLAGS := " -fvisibility=hidden" either. XOrg does.

discomfitor · Post by **discomfitor** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:02 pm

Personally, I use (and am a big fan of)

Code: Select all

CFLAGS="-march=i686 -O2 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"

I don't use -march=pentium4 because it does screwy things at the moment.

racoontje · Post by **racoontje** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:18 pm

Just for curiosity, what do the binary packages of other distros use?

BTW, --fuckroll-loops and --ffast-math do actually break things. People who use it just don't notice it because someone else has broken it (be)for(e) them and the package now disables the flag.

Birtz · Post by **Birtz** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:46 pm

@spb:
Great bashing man, suppose you don't want to tell him about ALLOW ... ups ups, shut up, shut up

Cheers

augury · Post by **augury** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:50 am

Well how is it that you would define "horked."
I say major because, although I have not found any broken functionality, I have not tested each and every application.

nife · Post by **nife** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:56 am

This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.

Muso · Post by **Muso** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:09 am

nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.

Look... don't lecture devs who have to constantly remind users not to build their systems with -O9 -ffast-math -ff*ck-up-my-system. It is a perpetual problem for the various gentoo devs to handle bug reports from people using retarted CFLAGS. All of their frustration is not only understandable... but warranted.

MG-Cloud · Post by **MG-Cloud** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:37 am

Reading through this thread, I see that the overwhelming recommendation seems to be to remove -O3 and to use -O2. I'm wondering why this is - for stability, for performance, or both?

spb · Post by **spb** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:56 pm

augury wrote:Well how is it that you would define "horked."
I say major because, although I have not found any broken functionality, I have not tested each and every application.

So this doesn't count, I suppose? You can't tell me that system isn't completely broken.

Enlight · Post by **Enlight** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 2:27 pm

I used to test lots of cflags in a chrooted environment (GCC 3.4.3) and nerver found at this moment faster than "-march=my_cpu -O2 -fomit-frame-buffer" only taking in account sys and usr times.

But from what I've already read, some flags turns by O1 (and as O1 is involved by O2) seems to slow down the system so I was wondering if manually setting the flags implies by O2 withouts some turned by O1 would still be a safe way to build a system.

May someone enlighten me about this?

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:36 pm

nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

No, as a dev it is my responsibility to make sure that users who don't know any better don't get suckered in by all the lies posted by a small group of idiots who try to make out that using screwy build environments is 'perfectly stable'. Remember, every time you tell someone to use -ffast-math, you waste significant amounts of developer time.

Actually, really I'd hope that the forum mods would do that kind of thing, but they've consistently shown that they don't have developers' interests at heart...

racoontje · Post by **racoontje** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:38 pm

nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.

If you did actually know what you were talking about, you'd know that gcc doesn't generate ASM. ASM is a language, basically human-readable machine code, which has to be piped through an assembler and a linker first.

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:44 pm

racoontje wrote:
nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.
If you did actually know what you were talking about, you'd know that gcc doesn't generate ASM. ASM is a language, basically human-readable machine code, which has to be piped through an assembler and a linker first.

Eh?

Chaosite · Post by **Chaosite** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:50 pm

racoontje wrote:If you did actually know what you were talking about, you'd know that gcc doesn't generate ASM. ASM is a language, basically human-readable machine code, which has to be piped through an assembler and a linker first.

Dude...

gcc -S ...

nife · Post by **nife** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:30 am

racoontje wrote:
nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.
If you did actually know what you were talking about, you'd know that gcc doesn't generate ASM. ASM is a language, basically human-readable machine code, which has to be piped through an assembler and a linker first.

Like has been said, gcc -S
And that was in response to where a dev said to actually read and understand the asm created by gcc. So yes I actually know what I was typing

stonent · Post by **stonent** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:56 am

ciaranm wrote:Ugh. I hope you're not intending to *ever* report any bugs or ask for help with broken packages...

Cheese with your whine?

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:23 pm

stonent wrote:
ciaranm wrote:Ugh. I hope you're not intending to *ever* report any bugs or ask for help with broken packages...
Cheese with your whine?

No, but you can give me some cookies.

Post by **pjp** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:48 pm

ciaranm wrote:No, as a dev it is my responsibility to make sure that users who don't know any better don't get suckered in by all the lies posted by a small group of idiots who try to make out that using screwy build environments is 'perfectly stable'. Remember, every time you tell someone to use -ffast-math, you waste significant amounts of developer time.

Actually, really I'd hope that the forum mods would do that kind of thing, but they've consistently shown that they don't have developers' interests at heart...

"they don't have developers' interests at heart..." No, you are correct, we aren't here to appease the almighty developer. We're just here to try and keep a community environment working with as few problems as possible. As for moderators telling someone to NOT use --ffast-math, I wonder how many moderators would be qualified to explain why it shouldn't be used. I myself am not, which is why I volunteered to help moderate instead of develop.

If yourself (and any other interested devs) compile a list of what not to do, I'd be glad to refer people to it.

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:54 pm

pjp wrote:"they don't have developers' interests at heart..." No, you are correct, we aren't here to appease the almighty developer. We're just here to try and keep a community environment working with as few problems as possible.

And, as I have said before, your attitude in that matter is seriously harming Gentoo's image and our ability to keep things working.

Post by **pjp** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:14 pm

ciaranm wrote:And, as I have said before, your attitude in that matter is seriously harming Gentoo's image and our ability to keep things working.

OK, so I'm supposed to randomly go around and tell users to not do things? That makes no sense.

racoontje · Post by **racoontje** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:43 pm

OK people, relax, both of you.

You both have points. pjp made an interesting point: if developers would spend a little bit of time on making a list of what Gentoo allows you to do but that absolutely doesn't need doing, they'd save themselves a lot of time on the long run.
ciaranm has a point too.

ciaranm wrote:
racoontje wrote:
nife wrote:This is a general note to some of the dev who have posted in here:

As a dev it should be your responsibilty to stay as far away as possible from flaming people as possible. Instead you tend to try to incite discord. If there a cflags in there are broken don't you think it better to educate rather then threaten people with marking bugs wontfix ? I appreciate all of your work, and if I had time i would help you out. But you still have a responsibilty to the community not to be power hungry.

Oh and by the way I do read gcc-devel and I do know and understand a good deal of the asm the is created. So don't put this down as someone who just wants to bitch about cflags because I want them. I run a pretty vanilla set.
If you did actually know what you were talking about, you'd know that gcc doesn't generate ASM. ASM is a language, basically human-readable machine code, which has to be piped through an assembler and a linker first.
Eh?

You're not going to tell me that the ELF binary you get when you cat /bin/ls (produced partly by the linker and gcc) is the same thing as mov %rax %rbx, right?

ciaranm · Post by **ciaranm** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:47 pm

racoontje wrote:OK people, relax, both of you.

You both have points. pjp made an interesting point: if developers would spend a little bit of time on making a list of what Gentoo allows you to do but that absolutely doesn't need doing, they'd save themselves a lot of time on the long run.
ciaranm has a point too.

It's really quite simple. As I've said before, don't put CFLAGS in make.conf.

Post by **pjp** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:54 pm

Now I know "what" but not the "why." When I'm asked why after telling a user, to what am I supposed to refer them to? They aren't going to pay attention to "because," nevermind the ones that won't pay attention period.

If CFLAGS shouldn't be in make.conf, thats a portage issue (or whatever semantics claim ownership to the file) and not a forums issue.

Also, no matter how much people are told not to do something, they are going to continue doing what they want because they "read" that it would make their system bigger/better/faster/more.

racoontje · Post by **racoontje** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:04 pm

ciaranm wrote:
racoontje wrote:OK people, relax, both of you.

You both have points. pjp made an interesting point: if developers would spend a little bit of time on making a list of what Gentoo allows you to do but that absolutely doesn't need doing, they'd save themselves a lot of time on the long run.
ciaranm has a point too.
It's really quite simple. As I've said before, don't put CFLAGS in make.conf.

Wouldn't it be much easier to simply ignore bug reports that were sent in with -ffast-math, -omg-optimized etc? If you hide CFLAGS better, ricers will look harder, plus they will think they are even 'better' because they had to 'work so hard' to get their system 'optimized'.