[gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Pandu Poluan]

I noticed Dale's email (hi Dale!) [1] asking about which gcc / glibc
unstable to use.

Is there any consensus yet as to which 'gcc'? I'm planning on doing an
`emerge -e @system` on two fresh installs, one x86 and the other
amd64.

Should I go with 4.5.3? Or 4.5.2? Or play it safe and use 4.5.1-r1
(which, based on b.g.o search [2], seems to have less (serious) bugs
compared to 4.5.2)

[1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/234240
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?order=Importance&short_desc=gcc&resolution=---&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr

Rgds,


-- 
--
Pandu E Poluan - IT Optimizer
My website: http://pandu.poluan.info/

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
> I noticed Dale's email (hi Dale!) [1] asking about which gcc / glibc
> unstable to use.
>
> Is there any consensus yet as to which 'gcc'? I'm planning on doing an
> `emerge -e @system` on two fresh installs, one x86 and the other
> amd64.
>
> Should I go with 4.5.3? Or 4.5.2? Or play it safe and use 4.5.1-r1
> (which, based on b.g.o search [2], seems to have less (serious) bugs
> compared to 4.5.2)
>
> [1] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/234240
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?order=Importance&short_desc=gcc&resolution=---&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr
>
> Rgds,
>
>
>    

Howdy,

I'm using this:

root@fireball / # equery list gcc glibc
  * Searching for gcc ...
[IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5:4.4
[IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.3:4.5

  * Searching for glibc ...
[IP-] [  ] sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4:2.2
root@fireball / #

The higher gcc is the one in use.  Everything compiles fine.  One thing 
tho, I started a download and went to town.  When I got back, I was 
sitting at my grub menu.  Most likely not related but wanted to mention 
juuuuuuuuust in case.  ;-)  Yea, my reboot issues is happening again.  :-@

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Pandu Poluan]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:14, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>> I noticed Dale's email (hi Dale!) [1] asking about which gcc / glibc
>> unstable to use.
>>
>> Is there any consensus yet as to which 'gcc'? I'm planning on doing an
>> `emerge -e @system` on two fresh installs, one x86 and the other
>> amd64.
>>
>> Should I go with 4.5.3? Or 4.5.2? Or play it safe and use 4.5.1-r1
>> (which, based on b.g.o search [2], seems to have less (serious) bugs
>> compared to 4.5.2)
>>
>
> Howdy,
>
> I'm using this:
>
> root@fireball / # equery list gcc glibc
>  * Searching for gcc ...
> [IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5:4.4
> [IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.3:4.5
>

So, 4.5.3 is quite safe for day-to-day usage eh?

Okay, keywording it. Thanks!

>  * Searching for glibc ...
> [IP-] [  ] sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4:2.2
> root@fireball / #
>
> The higher gcc is the one in use.  Everything compiles fine.  One thing tho,
> I started a download and went to town.  When I got back, I was sitting at my
> grub menu.  Most likely not related but wanted to mention juuuuuuuuust in
> case.  ;-)  Yea, my reboot issues is happening again.  :-@
>

Hmmm, just a hunch: Have you tried updating the motherboard's firmware?

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 08:14, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>      
>>> I noticed Dale's email (hi Dale!) [1] asking about which gcc / glibc
>>> unstable to use.
>>>
>>> Is there any consensus yet as to which 'gcc'? I'm planning on doing an
>>> `emerge -e @system` on two fresh installs, one x86 and the other
>>> amd64.
>>>
>>> Should I go with 4.5.3? Or 4.5.2? Or play it safe and use 4.5.1-r1
>>> (which, based on b.g.o search [2], seems to have less (serious) bugs
>>> compared to 4.5.2)
>>>
>>>        
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I'm using this:
>>
>> root@fireball / # equery list gcc glibc
>>   * Searching for gcc ...
>> [IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.5:4.4
>> [IP-] [  ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.3:4.5
>>
>>      
> So, 4.5.3 is quite safe for day-to-day usage eh?
>
> Okay, keywording it. Thanks!
>
>    
>>   * Searching for glibc ...
>> [IP-] [  ] sys-libs/glibc-2.13-r4:2.2
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> The higher gcc is the one in use.  Everything compiles fine.  One thing tho,
>> I started a download and went to town.  When I got back, I was sitting at my
>> grub menu.  Most likely not related but wanted to mention juuuuuuuuust in
>> case.  ;-)  Yea, my reboot issues is happening again.  :-@
>>
>>      
> Hmmm, just a hunch: Have you tried updating the motherboard's firmware?
>
> Rgds,
>    

I did upgrade it a while back.  I'll check and see if there is a new one 
now.  I hadn't thought of that before.  We all know that a update fixes 
some bugs but introduces several new ones.  lol   Reminds me of Raid.  
Kill some but new babies come out a few days later.  New bugs but still 
problems.  :/

Thanks much.  Great hunch.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
>
> I did upgrade it a while back.  I'll check and see if there is a new 
> one now.  I hadn't thought of that before.  We all know that a update 
> fixes some bugs but introduces several new ones.  lol   Reminds me of 
> Raid.  Kill some but new babies come out a few days later.  New bugs 
> but still problems.  :/
>
> Thanks much.  Great hunch.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

OK.  Here is a linky:

http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3320&dl=1#bios

There is a update but I don't think it is something I should need.  It 
has a brief description of what is changed.  Does anyone think I should 
update this anyway?  They always say not to upgrade unless it is going 
to fix something since it can break things.  I'm on F4 now by the way.  
The F5A would be the new one.

Thoughts?  Yeps or nopes would be great.  Alan, Neil and other gurus.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 01:09:53 PM Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > I did upgrade it a while back.  I'll check and see if there is a new
> > one now.  I hadn't thought of that before.  We all know that a update
> > fixes some bugs but introduces several new ones.  lol   Reminds me of
> > Raid.  Kill some but new babies come out a few days later.  New bugs
> > but still problems.  :/
> > 
> > Thanks much.  Great hunch.
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-)
> 
> OK.  Here is a linky:
> 
> http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3320&dl=1#bios
> 
> There is a update but I don't think it is something I should need.  It
> has a brief description of what is changed.  Does anyone think I should
> update this anyway?  They always say not to upgrade unless it is going
> to fix something since it can break things.  I'm on F4 now by the way.
> The F5A would be the new one.
> 
> Thoughts?  Yeps or nopes would be great.  Alan, Neil and other gurus.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

Comment 2 "Update CPU AGESA code" might help. You'd need to google for what 
AGESA means. (Not done this yet)
Comment 1, however, "Beta BIOS" makes me think you might not want to try it.
Beta is generally, testing, it might break things.

Am surprised they put a Beta up though.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Thanasis]

on 08/10/2011 09:48 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote the following:

> Comment 2 "Update CPU AGESA code" might help. You'd need to google for what 
> AGESA means. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGESA

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

Thanasis wrote:
> on 08/10/2011 09:48 PM Joost Roeleveld wrote the following:
>
>    
>> Comment 2 "Update CPU AGESA code" might help. You'd need to google for what
>> AGESA means.
>>      
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGESA
>
>
>
>    

Yea, I googled it too.  Basically, it is to support newer CPUs.  Since 
my CPU works, that shouldn't be the problem.  I'll wait until it at 
least gets out of beta.  ;-)  We all know my record on breaking things.  
lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[pk]

On 2011-08-10 22:38, Dale wrote:

> Yea, I googled it too.  Basically, it is to support newer CPUs.  Since

Hm... the way I interpret it it seems similar to Intels microcode
updates; this could be updates to support new CPUs and/or updates to
handle bugs in the CPUs...

> my CPU works, that shouldn't be the problem.  I'll wait until it at
> least gets out of beta.  ;-)  We all know my record on breaking things. 
> lol

Yes, if you feel there's nothing wrong with your CPU perhaps it's
prudent to not update to a "beta"...

Best regards

Peter K

[gentoo-user] Re: Which gcc unstable?

[walt]

On 08/10/2011 10:57 AM, Dale wrote:
> Pandu Poluan wrote:

>> Hmmm, just a hunch: Have you tried updating the motherboard's firmware?
>>
> 
> I did upgrade it a while back.

Why did you upgrade it the first time?  Were you trying to fix a different
problem back then?

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

pk wrote:
> On 2011-08-10 22:38, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> my CPU works, that shouldn't be the problem.  I'll wait until it at
>> least gets out of beta.  ;-)  We all know my record on breaking things.
>> lol
>>      
> Yes, if you feel there's nothing wrong with your CPU perhaps it's
> prudent to not update to a "beta"...
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>
>    

If it wasn't beta, I'd update anyway.  At least then I would know what 
it is not, well most likely anyway.  It's the beta that bothers me.  
I'll try to remember to check back in a month or so to see if it is out 
of beta.  Maybe it does have some sort of fix in it.  I sure would like 
one.  I had several days of uptime then it crashed.  It has worked fine 
since too.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which gcc unstable?

[Dale]

walt wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 10:57 AM, Dale wrote:
>    
>> Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>      
>    
>>> Hmmm, just a hunch: Have you tried updating the motherboard's firmware?
>>>
>>>        
>> I did upgrade it a while back.
>>      
> Why did you upgrade it the first time?  Were you trying to fix a different
> problem back then?
>
>
>    

I think so.  It was a while back when I first bought this thing.  I 
think it had a update for the network card or something.  I'm not 100% 
sure tho.  I do know Gigabyte said to upgrade to F3 or higher.  I 
actually sent them a message to see if it was mobo or what.

When I did it tho I had my old rig sitting right here beside me so 
switching was easy.  Now, my old rig is in another room and switching 
would be more difficult.  I update the old rig once a month but it is 
over ssh.  It doesn't even have a monitor now.  Poor thing.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:11:48 PM pk wrote:
> > Yea, I googled it too.  Basically, it is to support newer CPUs.  Since
> 
> Hm... the way I interpret it it seems similar to Intels microcode
> updates; this could be updates to support new CPUs and/or updates to
> handle bugs in the CPUs...

There was a thread on here started on January 17 about AMDs microcode and how 
to get that to work.
If it's a bugfix for AMD cpus, you might be able to apply that using software 
during boot.

--
Joost