Re: [gentoo-user] OT - Is there a gcc-4.1.1 alternative?

[Hans-Werner Hilse <hilse@web.de>]

Hi,

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:29:09 -0500
Randy Barlow <randy@electronsweatshop.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 13 January 2007 09:42, Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > This strace doesn't help me much.  What does "attached" mean, anyway?
> 
> I don't know what the problem is, but I can tell you that strace "attaches" to 
> a process meaning that it begins to watch the process to see what system 
> calls it is making.  If the process doesn't make any system calls, then you 
> won't see anything with strace. [...]

I think since the suggestion of using "strace" to look if a certain
process is "doing" things was mine. So I owe this thread a bit more
input. Randy, you're completely right. And especially the compile task
in question, "gcc -o insn-attrtab.o" (shortened), is rather CPU- but
not kernel-intensive. I don't know what exactly it does (not familiar
with gcc internals), but it _heavily_ depends on the optimization
level. So my suggestion to the OP would be to carefully look at the
CFLAGS. Maybe -- please correct me if that is the case -- is a gcc
build restricted to certain CFLAGS, though. At this stage, I would
exclude a race condition involving the kernel, e.g. some stale or
missing files. It may have to do with threading, but gcc doesn't thread.

Question to the OP: What is the larger context of that gcc build? A
simple update? A larger scale configuration change?

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list