Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Enrico Weigelt]

* Randy Barlow <randy@electronsweatshop.com> wrote:

Hi,

> Is this a bug that I should file, or a user error do you think?  It
> build for several hours before it gets to this point, but it will fail
> consistently at this same point.  Any ideas?

obviously an bug. Please file a report.

BTW: I didn't ever get OO built by myself, neither w/ gentoo,
nor vanilly. I really wonder what they're doing there! It's even
worse than mozilla :(


cu
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Enrico Weigelt    ==   metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce:
 	http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce
 Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions:
	http://patches.metux.de/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Howdy.  I added the gtk use flag to my system and did the emerge
--update --deep --newuse world thing, and everything worked fine until
it got to Open Office.  The failure message is:

g++: Internal error: Killed (program cc1plus)
Please submit a full bug report.
See <URL:http://bugs.gentoo.org/> for instructions.
dmake:  Error code 1, while making
'../../../../unxlngi6.pro/slo/SlideSorterView.obj'
'---* tg_merge.mk *---'

ERROR: Error 65280 occurred while making
/var/tmp/portage/openoffice-2.0.3/work/ooo-build-2.0.3.0/build/OOO_2_0_3/sd/source/ui/slidesorter/view
make: *** [stamp/build] Error 1

!!! ERROR: app-office/openoffice-2.0.3 failed.
Call stack:
  ebuild.sh, line 1539:   Called dyn_compile
  ebuild.sh, line 939:   Called src_compile
  openoffice-2.0.3.ebuild, line 251:   Called die

Is this a bug that I should file, or a user error do you think?  It
build for several hours before it gets to this point, but it will fail
consistently at this same point.  Any ideas?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Richard Fish]

On 7/28/06, Randy Barlow <randy@electronsweatshop.com> wrote:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > obviously an bug. Please file a report.
>
> Filed!  It's at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142053 if anyone
> is interested in following it.

Can you retry with:

CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe"

Also, why are you running an i386 CHOST?  You should probably have
used an i686 stage3 tarball...

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> obviously an bug. Please file a report.

Filed!  It's at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142053 if anyone
is interested in following it.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Richard Fish wrote:
> Can you retry with:
> 
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe"

I'm currently trying to upgrade to the newer version as per the recent
gentoo security advisory concerning OO, but if that doesn't work, I'll
give the less aggressive CFLAGS a try :)

> Also, why are you running an i386 CHOST?  You should probably have
> used an i686 stage3 tarball...

Hmm, somehow I must not have noticed that.  You are certainly right
though - it is possible to migrate my system to the i686 CHOST gracefully?


> -Richard

Thanks!
Randy
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Alexander Skwar]

Randy Barlow schrieb:
> Richard Fish wrote:
>> Can you retry with:
>> 
>> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe"
[...]
>> Also, why are you running an i386 CHOST?  You should probably have
>> used an i686 stage3 tarball...
> 
> Hmm, somehow I must not have noticed that.  You are certainly right
> though - it is possible to migrate my system to the i686 CHOST gracefully?

CHOST isn't that important at all. Much much more important are the
CFLAGS, and here especially -march (or -mtune & -mcpu). If you're
using a Pentium 3 and have done "emerge -e world" once, then all is
fine.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
 > CHOST isn't that important at all. Much much more important are the
> CFLAGS, and here especially -march (or -mtune & -mcpu). If you're
> using a Pentium 3 and have done "emerge -e world" once, then all is
> fine.

I haven't done the emerge -e thing, but shouldn't everything eventually
make its way to those CFLAGS anyway just because it will be upgraded?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Alexander Skwar]

Randy Barlow schrieb:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>  > CHOST isn't that important at all. Much much more important are the
>> CFLAGS, and here especially -march (or -mtune & -mcpu). If you're
>> using a Pentium 3 and have done "emerge -e world" once, then all is
>> fine.
> 
> I haven't done the emerge -e thing, but shouldn't everything eventually
> make its way to those CFLAGS anyway just because it will be upgraded?

Yes, eventually it will. And as i386 is compatible to pentium3,
I wouldn't expect any compatibility issues. You might not get
the VERY best performance - but then again, I doubt that there'll
be noticeable performancegain by compiling with march=pentium3
anyway. There will certainly some applications which benefit from
this, but overall, on a desktop, this won't be noticeable (ie.
won't achive a performance gain of >10%).

Alexander Skwar
-- 
A quarrel is quickly settled when deserted by one party; there is no battle
unless there be two.  -- Seneca
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Richard Fish wrote:
> Can you retry with:
> 
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe"

Awesome, this seems to have done the trick - thanks!

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Richard Fish]

On 7/30/06, Randy Barlow <randy@electronsweatshop.com> wrote:
> Richard Fish wrote:
> > Can you retry with:
> >
> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe"
>
> Awesome, this seems to have done the trick - thanks!

BTW, -O3 uses *a lot* more ram to compile compared to -O2.  Indeed,
gcc will sometimes take 200-500MB of RAM to compile a single C++
module.  So combined with MAKEOPTS=-j2, and only 512MB of RAM total,
yeah, I think you ran out of memory.

In fact, you may want to drop to MAKEOPTS=-j1 permanently.  Swapping
is simply not something you want to do when compiling...it is too damn
slow.  If you run so many jobs that some get pushed to swap, it would
be far faster to run one job at a time without swapping!

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OO Build Failed

[Randy Barlow]

Richard Fish wrote:
> BTW, -O3 uses *a lot* more ram to compile compared to -O2.  Indeed,
> gcc will sometimes take 200-500MB of RAM to compile a single C++
> module.  So combined with MAKEOPTS=-j2, and only 512MB of RAM total,
> yeah, I think you ran out of memory.
> 
> In fact, you may want to drop to MAKEOPTS=-j1 permanently.  Swapping
> is simply not something you want to do when compiling...it is too damn
> slow.  If you run so many jobs that some get pushed to swap, it would
> be far faster to run one job at a time without swapping!

Thanks for the advice Richard!

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