[gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

hi folks,
here is an initial ebuild of gcc 3.3, it doesn't contain propolice
patch, and I haven't checked it with "build" or other flags except the
default. (its slow to build on this machine)

The installationprocess has changed significantly,   and now is actually
far cleaner.  I hope there aren't many snags with how this behaves on
systems.

I haven't yet looked at the thread patches, I hope somone who's more
into this than I am can advice on that.


Comments and testers are welcome :)
    

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

I should learn...  heres the tarball



-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #1.2: gcc3.3.tar --]
[-- Type: application/x-tar, Size: 20480 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 568 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Fri, 16 May 2003 02:20:31 +0200
Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:

ChangeLog from 3.2.3-r1 :
  commented out  ProPolice patches
  commented out manpages (not tested with build)
  commented out tls patches
  commented out other patches..    
 
   ( installation cleanup  )
   removed hack for installdir / FAKE_ROOT
   changed make install to use DESTDIR
   
   recreate the version patch
  
 



//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Dhruba Bandopadhyay]

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 01:20, Spider wrote:
> hi folks,
> here is an initial ebuild of gcc 3.3, it doesn't contain propolice
> patch, and I haven't checked it with "build" or other flags except the
> default. (its slow to build on this machine)

There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
too.  Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
creation?

Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or testig
state on portage?

I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will sort
them out.

Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?

Also, as a short note to those devs making a cflags guide to say that
the optimisation options have changed somewhat for gcc 3.3; an example
being -fomit-frame-pointer is now enabled by -O3 (taken from online
manual).

With regards
Dhruba Bandopadhyay


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

begin  quote
On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100
Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@codewordt.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
> too.  Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
> creation?

Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc
since 3.1 days)  so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on.
 
> Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or
> testig state on portage?

I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to
decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own
experience to see what goes.   

> 
> I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will
> sort them out.

It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure
about glibc and kernel issues either. 

> 
> Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
> prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?

Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through
the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just
commented it out to see what happened.  I suspect a lot of them are no
longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new
manner, not really an easy task.

I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in
speed though.

//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[David Nielsen]

Just FYI, a few brave souls like myself have already been running GCC
3.3 of CVS for a period of time, and have found quite a few solutions to
common problems with GCC 3.3 and various packages.

There's a thread in Other things Gentoo on the forums that you might
want to read, I forgot the complete link and I lack a browser right now
so go search :)

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 16:20, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100
> Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@codewordt.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
> > too.  Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
> > creation?
> 
> Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc
> since 3.1 days)  so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on.
>  
> > Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or
> > testig state on portage?
> 
> I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to
> decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own
> experience to see what goes.   
> 
> > 
> > I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> > pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will
> > sort them out.
> 
> It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure
> about glibc and kernel issues either. 
> 
> > 
> > Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
> > prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?
> 
> Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through
> the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just
> commented it out to see what happened.  I suspect a lot of them are no
> longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new
> manner, not really an easy task.
> 
> I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in
> speed though.
> 
> //Spider
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[David Nielsen]

Just FYI, a few brave souls like myself have already been running GCC
3.3 of CVS for a period of time, and have found quite a few solutions to
common problems with GCC 3.3 and various packages.

There's a thread in Other things Gentoo on the forums that you might
want to read, I forgot the complete link and I lack a browser right now
so go search :)

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 16:20, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On 16 May 2003 13:00:53 +0100
> Dhruba Bandopadhyay <dhruba@codewordt.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > There is an ebuild for it on bugzilla and one here and some on forums
> > too.  Have you used any of these as a definitive base or is this a new
> > creation?
> 
> Neither, I wanted a go at it again (I haven't been messing with gcc
> since 3.1 days)  so I started from last known working 3.2.3 and went on.
>  
> > Also, is there any sign of this being entered into hardmasked or
> > testig state on portage?
> 
> I'm not the maintainer of gcc, so I shall leave that up to Azarah to
> decide, let him distill the different builds along with his own
> experience to see what goes.   
> 
> > 
> > I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> > pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will
> > sort them out.
> 
> It may, so far it appears some old c++ code will barf though. not sure
> about glibc and kernel issues either. 
> 
> > 
> > Pardon my ignorance but have all these patches been commented out to
> > prevent resultant problems or because they are no longer necessary?
> 
> Thats up to the maintainer, since I havent taken the time to go through
> the patches each in turn and verify wether it is needed anymore I just
> commented it out to see what happened.  I suspect a lot of them are no
> longer necessary, and those that are will have to be re-diffed in a new
> manner, not really an easy task.
> 
> I suspect the real build won't enter portage until propolice is up in
> speed though.
> 
> //Spider
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] [WIP] gcc 3.3

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 561 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 14:00, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote:

> I'd be quite keen on testing it out since I have had my fair share of
> pentium4 problems and am desperately hoping an upgrade of gcc will sort
> them out.
> 

You could try gcc-3.2.3 until all 3.3 issues are resolved.  I did
limited testing, but at least for glibc-2.3.2, compiling it with
-march=pentium4 did not fail any math test like 3.2.2 and earlier
did ....


Regards,

-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]