From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1H5pne-0003el-UT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:48:27 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l0DKl39I004754; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:47:03 GMT Received: from gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de [134.76.163.126]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0DKdF7A029152 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:39:15 GMT Received: by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix, from userid 8) id 15550FF0BA; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:39:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (dslc-082-082-182-225.pools.arcor-ip.net [82.82.182.225]) by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A5B5FE782 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:39:11 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:45:19 +0100 From: Hans-Werner Hilse To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] OT - Is there a gcc-4.1.1 alternative? Message-Id: <20070113214519.f19670a4.hilse@web.de> In-Reply-To: <200701131229.09898.randy@electronsweatshop.com> References: <1168699369.14521.15.camel@camille.espersunited.com> <200701131229.09898.randy@electronsweatshop.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.3.0 (GTK+ 2.10.6; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Details: No, hits=1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de X-Archives-Salt: 24f84c36-92a3-445e-96a5-105e89d76556 X-Archives-Hash: 4b93cf5c97c01b726a8b8ec73ceec55b Hi, On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:29:09 -0500 Randy Barlow 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