From: Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] lazy gcc switching
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 08:49:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C47171A.5000501@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C46CA6D.3080608@gmail.com>
On 07/21/2010 03:22 AM, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Wednesday 21 July 2010 10:53:19 fajfusio@wp.pl wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I've just switched to gcc 4.3.4 from 4.1.2 using gcc-config tool. I
>>> don't
>>> want to rebuild any package now. As time goes on my packages will be
>>> compiled with new version. I hope that after a few month there will be
>>> only a number of packages not compiled with a new gcc. Then I want to
>>> recompile them on demand including libtool if necessary.
>>>
>>> Do you think my plan have a chance to succeed.
>>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Why do you think you would even need to get into a long compile? Have
>> you been
>> reading that GCC Upgrade Guide at gentoo.org? You know, the one that
>> is so
>> flat out wrong on so many levels?
>>
>>
>
> I recently upgraded my gcc and I must confess, I did do a emerge -e
> system. Is it needed, nope.
>
> OP, Alan is correct on this. You don't really need to re-emerge
> everything. If, like me, you want to be on the safe side, just do a
> emerge -e system and let the rest recompile as you update.
>
> Another good thing about this way, if this version of gcc causes you
> trouble, you can downgrade and only have to re-emerge system. ;-) I
> did upgrade gcc once and had serious issues with it. Wouldn't compile a
> kernel, programs crashing and other weird things. After a downgrade,
> all went back to normal. The only thing worse than a emerge -e world is
> having to do it twice. LOL
And to play devil's advocate, I'll chime in with my experience. The 4.4
GCC, at least on AMD CPUs, creates noticeably faster code. I recompiled
all my packages after I upgraded to 4.4 and it was a *noticeable*
difference.
But, to make perfectly clear what Alan and Dale have stated previously,
it is not a requirement to recompile anything. The binaries that are
created still call the same system calls as they did before. The kernel
still publishes them in the same locations. And to prove to yourself
this is true, grab a statically linked binary, compiled for a stock
standard i686, and run it on your machine.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-21 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-21 8:53 [gentoo-user] lazy gcc switching fajfusio
2010-07-21 9:10 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-07-21 10:22 ` Dale
2010-07-21 15:49 ` Bill Longman [this message]
2010-07-21 19:39 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-07-21 20:36 ` Dale
2010-07-21 23:03 ` Walter Dnes
2010-07-21 22:18 ` Bill Longman
2010-07-21 23:08 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-07-22 0:03 ` Dale
2010-07-22 8:09 ` Alan McKinnon
2010-07-22 14:55 ` Bill Longman
2010-07-22 19:49 ` [gentoo-user] " walt
2010-07-22 20:27 ` Grant Edwards
2010-07-22 21:04 ` Bill Longman
2010-07-22 21:32 ` walt
2010-07-22 21:54 ` Grant Edwards
2010-07-23 7:28 ` Alan McKinnon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C47171A.5000501@gmail.com \
--to=bill.longman@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox