[gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...

anyone recompiled system or world with it already?

More advantages or disadvantages?

Thanks, Stefan

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Sascha Cunz]

On Monday, 28. May 2012 22:04:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
> 
> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
> 
> More advantages or disadvantages?

I tried an emerge -ev world yesterday (on a box with a total about 1100 
emergeed packages), so far only had compiling trouble with gst-pluings-ffmpeg 
(gcc4.7.0 bug including patch is on b.g.o[1], so was easy to solve) and 
firefox 12.

All of KDE 4.8.3 and libreoffice did emerge nicely. Though i did not test the 
results yet.

SaCu

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407741

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 2012-05-28 22:54, schrieb Sascha Cunz:
> On Monday, 28. May 2012 22:04:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>>
>> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>>
>> More advantages or disadvantages?
> 
> I tried an emerge -ev world yesterday (on a box with a total about 1100 
> emergeed packages), so far only had compiling trouble with gst-pluings-ffmpeg 
> (gcc4.7.0 bug including patch is on b.g.o[1], so was easy to solve) and 
> firefox 12.
> 
> All of KDE 4.8.3 and libreoffice did emerge nicely. Though i did not test the 
> results yet.
> 
> SaCu
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407741
> 


Thanks alot, Sascha, for that helpful feedback!

I will give it a try on one of my machines tonight.

In gentoo-ricer-terms: did you notice any improvements?

;-)

Stefan

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

On May 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@xunil.at> wrote:
>
> Am 2012-05-28 22:54, schrieb Sascha Cunz:
> > On Monday, 28. May 2012 22:04:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
> >>
> >> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
> >>
> >> More advantages or disadvantages?
> >
> > I tried an emerge -ev world yesterday (on a box with a total about 1100
> > emergeed packages), so far only had compiling trouble with
gst-pluings-ffmpeg
> > (gcc4.7.0 bug including patch is on b.g.o[1], so was easy to solve) and
> > firefox 12.
> >
> > All of KDE 4.8.3 and libreoffice did emerge nicely. Though i did not
test the
> > results yet.
> >
> > SaCu
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407741
> >
>
>
> Thanks alot, Sascha, for that helpful feedback!
>
> I will give it a try on one of my machines tonight.
>
> In gentoo-ricer-terms: did you notice any improvements?
>
> ;-)
>

LOL

Yeah, I am also wondering how much improvement graphite sees with 4.7.0

*shuffles over to gcc changelog

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1509 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@xunil.at> wrote:
>>
>> Am 2012-05-28 22:54, schrieb Sascha Cunz:
>> > On Monday, 28. May 2012 22:04:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>> >> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>> >>
>> >> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>> >>
>> >> More advantages or disadvantages?
>> >
>> > I tried an emerge -ev world yesterday (on a box with a total about 1100
>> > emergeed packages), so far only had compiling trouble with
>> > gst-pluings-ffmpeg
>> > (gcc4.7.0 bug including patch is on b.g.o[1], so was easy to solve) and
>> > firefox 12.
>> >
>> > All of KDE 4.8.3 and libreoffice did emerge nicely. Though i did not
>> > test the
>> > results yet.
>> >
>> > SaCu
>> >
>> > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407741
>> >
>>
>>
>> Thanks alot, Sascha, for that helpful feedback!
>>
>> I will give it a try on one of my machines tonight.
>>
>> In gentoo-ricer-terms: did you notice any improvements?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
> LOL
>
> Yeah, I am also wondering how much improvement graphite sees with 4.7.0
>
> *shuffles over to gcc changelog

I'm mostly looking forward to Bulldozer support and RDRAND.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[microcai]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1431 bytes --]

2012/5/29 Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >
> > On May 29, 2012 4:15 AM, "Stefan G. Weichinger" <lists@xunil.at> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 2012-05-28 22:54, schrieb Sascha Cunz:
> >> > On Monday, 28. May 2012 22:04:30 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >> >> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
> >> >>
> >> >> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
> >> >>
> >> >> More advantages or disadvantages?
> >> >
> >> > I tried an emerge -ev world yesterday (on a box with a total about
> 1100
> >> > emergeed packages), so far only had compiling trouble with
> >> > gst-pluings-ffmpeg
> >> > (gcc4.7.0 bug including patch is on b.g.o[1], so was easy to solve)
> and
> >> > firefox 12.
> >> >
> >> > All of KDE 4.8.3 and libreoffice did emerge nicely. Though i did not
> >> > test the
> >> > results yet.
> >> >
> >> > SaCu
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407741
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks alot, Sascha, for that helpful feedback!
> >>
> >> I will give it a try on one of my machines tonight.
> >>
> >> In gentoo-ricer-terms: did you notice any improvements?
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Yeah, I am also wondering how much improvement graphite sees with 4.7.0
> >
> > *shuffles over to gcc changelog
>
> I'm mostly looking forward to Bulldozer support and RDRAND.
>
>
LOL I thought no one buys it


> --
> :wq
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2613 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:30 AM, microcai <microcai@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> 2012/5/29 Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>

[snip]

>> I'm mostly looking forward to Bulldozer support and RDRAND.
>>
>
> LOL I thought no one buys it

The average decent-quality AMD-supporting motherboard that supports
the level of contemporary features I want costs 100-130 USD, and I
generally go for a CPU in the range of $150-$180. So that's a total
ticket price of about $250-$310 USD. I've been using AMD machines in
my home for five or six years, now; generally, when one box gets
upgraded, parts of it (especially the CPU) get put into a different
box to upgrade that. That hasn't been possible on Intel.

An Intel-supporting motherboard with the level of contemporary
features I want becomes my first hurdle. Just for the base set of
features I'd want (6 current-speed SATA ports, max "supported" RAM of
32GB, LGA1155), I'm looking at $230 and up. For a processor?
$200-$320. And I'd want an i7, not an i5, so we're talking upper
range.

Yes, the early Bulldozers don't measure up to the Phenom II, but
amdfam10 is going away, and Bulldozer will get past that mark. Rather
similar how Intel's early NetBurst cores didn't manage to beat Pentium
IIIs, but later ones did. (Yeah, NetBurst  eventually bit the dust,
and for good reason. I have to think, though, that a lot of what Intel
learned with NetBurst went into preparing them for Sandy Bridge's
incredible overclocking range.)

So, yeah, while I'd love a performance-grade Intel desktop box, it's
going to be hard to justify the price ticket. Even if I don't manage
to get an IvyBridge desktop box, I do want to get my hands on an
IvyBridge i3 motherboard; that RDRAND instruction is going to be sweet
in a network gateway machine, and the power consumption deliciously
low.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012, 08:58:52 schrieb Michael Mol:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 4:30 AM, microcai <microcai@fedoraproject.org> 
wrote:
> > 2012/5/29 Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >> I'm mostly looking forward to Bulldozer support and RDRAND.
> > 
> > LOL I thought no one buys it
> 
> The average decent-quality AMD-supporting motherboard that supports
> the level of contemporary features I want costs 100-130 USD, and I
> generally go for a CPU in the range of $150-$180. So that's a total
> ticket price of about $250-$310 USD. I've been using AMD machines in
> my home for five or six years, now; generally, when one box gets
> upgraded, parts of it (especially the CPU) get put into a different
> box to upgrade that. That hasn't been possible on Intel.
> 
> An Intel-supporting motherboard with the level of contemporary
> features I want becomes my first hurdle. Just for the base set of
> features I'd want (6 current-speed SATA ports, max "supported" RAM of
> 32GB, LGA1155), I'm looking at $230 and up. For a processor?
> $200-$320. And I'd want an i7, not an i5, so we're talking upper
> range.
> 
> Yes, the early Bulldozers don't measure up to the Phenom II, but
> amdfam10 is going away, and Bulldozer will get past that mark. Rather
> similar how Intel's early NetBurst cores didn't manage to beat Pentium
> IIIs, but later ones did. (Yeah, NetBurst  eventually bit the dust,
> and for good reason. I have to think, though, that a lot of what Intel
> learned with NetBurst went into preparing them for Sandy Bridge's
> incredible overclocking range.)
> 
> So, yeah, while I'd love a performance-grade Intel desktop box, it's
> going to be hard to justify the price ticket. Even if I don't manage
> to get an IvyBridge desktop box, I do want to get my hands on an
> IvyBridge i3 motherboard; that RDRAND instruction is going to be sweet
> in a network gateway machine, and the power consumption deliciously
> low.

and maybe buying intel is not a good idea at all:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/05/15/intel-small-business-advantage-is-a-
security-nightmare/

-- 
#163933

[gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 28/05/12 23:04, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>
> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>
> More advantages or disadvantages?

Since you didn't mention any specific workloads (like audio or video 
compression), I assume you're a typical desktop user (internet browsing, 
email, watching movies, listening to music, etc.)  There will be no 
differences in performance with GCC 4.7.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Ezequiel Garcia]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/05/12 23:04, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>>
>>
>> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>>
>> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>>
>> More advantages or disadvantages?
>
>
> Since you didn't mention any specific workloads (like audio or video
> compression), I assume you're a typical desktop user (internet browsing,
> email, watching movies, listening to music, etc.)  There will be no
> differences in performance with GCC 4.7.
>
>

Have anyone tried to compile linux kernels with gcc 4.7?
Is it faster / smarter ?
Does it shows more warnings or produce faster / smaller code or something ?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 29.05.2012 13:35, schrieb Ezequiel Garcia:

> Have anyone tried to compile linux kernels with gcc 4.7?
> Is it faster / smarter ?
> Does it shows more warnings or produce faster / smaller code or something ?

Compiled gentoo-sources-3.4.0 on ~amd64 with gcc 4.7.0.
Works.

Did no benchmarks, nothing really noticeable so far ...

Stefan

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Stefan G. Weichinger]

Am 29.05.2012 11:42, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 28/05/12 23:04, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>>
>> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>>
>> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>>
>> More advantages or disadvantages?
> 
> Since you didn't mention any specific workloads (like audio or video
> compression), I assume you're a typical desktop user (internet browsing,
> email, watching movies, listening to music, etc.)  There will be no
> differences in performance with GCC 4.7.

Yes, typical desktop/office user.
Some virtualization stuff as well (VMware player, KVM) ...

Thanks, Stefan

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Andrey Moshbear]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@xunil.at> wrote:
>
> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
>
> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
>
> More advantages or disadvantages?
>
> Thanks, Stefan
>

If you're a C++ developer, gcc 4.7 has more c++11 support, the most
important of which is a standards-conforming value of __cplusplus,
allowing you to portably check whether the compiler is standard
C++98(03) or C++11.

--
m0shbear

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Hinnerk van Bruinehsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28.05.2012 22:04, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> 
> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...
> 
> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
> 
> More advantages or disadvantages?
> 
> Thanks, Stefan
> 

Hi,

as far as I can tell it works mostly. There are some packages which
seem to break:

- - firefox and thunderbird, if I remember correctly
- - chromium (theres an open bug on bgo)
- - hardened-sources: the neccessary gcc-plugins don't work because they
can't find the right symbols because gcc-4.7 is normally compiled with
g++ which mangles the symbols. Don't know how to work around that,
though it seems to be possible to compile gcc-4.7 with gcc - I just
don't know how

For all packages which break it's possible to switch to your old
gcc-version (unless you uninstall it).

WKR

Hinnerk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPxKRBAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYcFQwH/RrmekPPrJmtlMuJTtxt6MyH
vsevdcmQTR89CMJtFETbI7FZDHaB6olq0dOXr/4lOlAi3BegSsam/tGfabeJQb/w
zLhDhR/hd3/YbQhqI4BzeWkpCqRYYr41dVXMCqGcydrfRmrT0ipXqggD0WqjHM/p
ZZb4WRjjbYeoCiZkE9GZtkpPHMmulifdeIrNszW7g9r//W8Lb6tCDFtWE+bnEn6Y
l2+XDGQh7/D9GiDXRUYfObuDfVwdnAHf/6Bgt4m2LR2wzEm6WNlMI1XEyPkYAHD+
390bQU2tu6Ha+n1Rl32HhMeGNHIJ3WSmLtoTlY7HiuDDiDxfhnrPDHmlZTFVWV8=
=9/eD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Adam Carter]

> Hi,
>
> as far as I can tell it works mostly. There are some packages which
> seem to break:
>
> - - firefox and thunderbird, if I remember correctly

looks like that's fixed, from the firefox ChangeLog
  28 May 2012; <anarchy@gentoo.org> firefox-12.0-r1.ebuild:
  Finish adding support for gcc-4.7, bug #410557

and the thunderbird Changlog has similar.

Re: [gentoo-user] ~gcc-4.7.0

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 05/29/12 06:26, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
> - hardened-sources: the neccessary gcc-plugins don't work because they
> can't find the right symbols because gcc-4.7 is normally compiled with
> g++ which mangles the symbols. Don't know how to work around that,
> though it seems to be possible to compile gcc-4.7 with gcc - I just
> don't know how

There's a progress report on this in the latest meeting log:

  http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-hardened/txtZMdHjDUoGa.txt

[gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[walt]

On 05/28/2012 01:04 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> 
> As GCC-4.7.0 appeared for ~amd64 now ...

Cool.  I hadn't noticed it yet.

> anyone recompiled system or world with it already?
> 
> More advantages or disadvantages?

Maybe a year ago I started having problems building virtualbox on my
older/smaller machine.  There is one place which ran through my puny
1GB of ram and then went on to fill up another 2GB of swap before
oomkill stepped in.

That turned out to be a gcc bug, and a proper fix was added to gcc
4.7.0 but not back-ported to 4.5.3, which I'm still using.

Since then I scavenged half of that 1GB of RAM for my wife's machine,
so it should be fun to try to build virtualbox with the other half :)

[gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[walt]

On 05/29/2012 04:54 AM, walt wrote:
> Maybe a year ago I started having problems building virtualbox on my
> older/smaller machine.  There is one place which ran through my puny
> 1GB of ram and then went on to fill up another 2GB of swap before
> oomkill stepped in.
>
> That turned out to be a gcc bug, and a proper fix was added to gcc
> 4.7.0 but not back-ported to 4.5.3, which I'm still using.
>
> Since then I scavenged half of that 1GB of RAM for my wife's machine,
> so it should be fun to try to build virtualbox with the other half :)

Very cool :)  I just built virtualbox with gcc-4.7.0 on my old machine
with 0.5 GB of ram and had no problems whatever.  I also pulled from
Linus.git and compiled his latest kernel with gcc-4.7.0, no problems.

So far, so good.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Nilesh Govindrajan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1053 bytes --]

On Jun 2, 2012 6:08 AM, "walt" <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/29/2012 04:54 AM, walt wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a year ago I started having problems building virtualbox on my
>> older/smaller machine.  There is one place which ran through my puny
>> 1GB of ram and then went on to fill up another 2GB of swap before
>> oomkill stepped in.
>>
>> That turned out to be a gcc bug, and a proper fix was added to gcc
>> 4.7.0 but not back-ported to 4.5.3, which I'm still using.
>>
>> Since then I scavenged half of that 1GB of RAM for my wife's machine,
>> so it should be fun to try to build virtualbox with the other half :)
>
>
> Very cool :)  I just built virtualbox with gcc-4.7.0 on my old machine
> with 0.5 GB of ram and had no problems whatever.  I also pulled from
> Linus.git and compiled his latest kernel with gcc-4.7.0, no problems.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>
>

Has anyone tried compiling chromium 20 (as of yesterday) and libreoffice
3.5.4.2 using gcc 4.7.0? I am unable to do so. Using unstable Amd64.

--
Nilesh Govindrajan
http://nileshgr.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1402 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: ~gcc-4.7.0

[Hinnerk van Bruinehsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1525 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02.06.2012 04:37, Nilesh Govindrajan wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2012 6:08 AM, "walt" <w41ter@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> 
> Has anyone tried compiling chromium 20 (as of yesterday) and
> libreoffice 3.5.4.2 using gcc 4.7.0? I am unable to do so. Using
> unstable Amd64.
> 
> -- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com
> 

Openoffice: No

Chromium >20: Yes - they're a bit of a PITA...

It won't work without some patches. Mostly missing includes for
unistd.h (in most files is a

#if defined(OS_ANDROID)
#include <unistd.h>
#endif

where it is needed (ideally in a #id defined(OS_POSIX) (or LINUX?)
#endif block).

I've got no time to look into the versions 20.x to <21.0.1155.2 and my
custom patch for 21.0.1155.2 also fixes a selinux related issue.

If you google you'll find some other patches (even one on
bugs.gentoo.org) which max work for you (depends on version, I think).

I'll attach my patch for reference.

WKR
Hinnerk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPybgeAAoJEJwwOFaNFkYcu2YIAIa3xtDXMD7hFy/7iI5yEhd2
eLE5+GswNKYdCeYRaLvuqQpWJnm2GZj7UQVklxd1qgA2UhxgHCZkiya5Uj8M3va6
iE8e2TfCwAUqkL69/9HAXQh+cuHreq7ZAP9/+1yUaH8NOa9gZluIzyZv/TtO/PiJ
wDK6Zhar/MlpFOrduz3m0gFuJun1fruVGvT9cIWRTDSsMmsGm6l88JNG1YyXtmZV
yoL5ZfT0g+Lw1IJ6C03WEFG8yW/nXjE9wIojjzQoC3fkBmTPNWmcXdz5LzPx8T+P
rc9WQf8IGRQwA8ME8LPEJZdGxZmT170nOs74TqwJOs7F2YGAwL+N0euHF8DCilg=
=16Fc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: selinux-gcc-4.7.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 5278 bytes --]

diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/chrome/browser/policy/policy_path_parser_linux.cc chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/chrome/browser/policy/policy_path_parser_linux.cc
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/chrome/browser/policy/policy_path_parser_linux.cc	2012-05-30 03:47:01.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/chrome/browser/policy/policy_path_parser_linux.cc	2012-05-30 23:53:01.123823731 +0200
@@ -4,6 +4,10 @@
 
 #include <pwd.h>
 
+//#if defined(OS_POSIX)
+#include <unistd.h>
+//#endif
+
 #include "chrome/browser/policy/policy_path_parser.h"
 
 #include "base/logging.h"
diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/public/common/sandbox_init.cc chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/public/common/sandbox_init.cc
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/public/common/sandbox_init.cc	2012-05-30 03:46:30.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/public/common/sandbox_init.cc	2012-05-30 17:09:00.044889918 +0200
@@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
 
 #if defined(OS_ANDROID)
 #include <unistd.h>
+#elif defined(OS_POSIX)
+#include <unistd.h>
 #endif
 
 namespace content {
diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_linux.cc chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_linux.cc
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_linux.cc	2012-05-30 03:46:27.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_linux.cc	2012-05-31 04:04:32.072791812 +0200
@@ -31,10 +31,38 @@
 #include "content/common/sandbox_methods_linux.h"
 #include "content/common/zygote_commands_linux.h"
 
+#if defined(CHROMIUM_SELINUX)
+#include <selinux/selinux.h>
+#include <selinux/context.h>
+#endif
+
 // See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxZygote
 
 namespace content {
 
+
+#if defined(CHROMIUM_SELINUX)
+static void SELinuxTransitionToTypeOrDie(char const* type) {
+  security_context_t security_context;
+  if (getcon(&security_context))
+    LOG(FATAL) << "Cannot get SELinux context";
+
+  context_t context = context_new(security_context);
+  context_type_set(context, type);
+  const int r = setcon(context_str(context));
+  context_free(context);
+  freecon(security_context);
+
+  if (r) {
+    LOG(FATAL) << "dynamic transition to type '" << type << "' failed. "
+                  "(this binary has been built with SELinux support, but maybe "
+                  "the policies haven't been loaded into the kernel?)";
+  }
+}
+#endif  // CHROMIUM_SELINUX
+
+
+
 namespace {
 
 // NOP function. See below where this handler is installed.
diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_linux.h chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_linux.h
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_linux.h	2012-05-30 03:46:27.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_linux.h	2012-05-31 03:31:16.013928301 +0200
@@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
 
 namespace content {
 
+static void SELinuxTransitionToTypeOrDie(char const * type);
+
 class ZygoteForkDelegate;
 
 // This is the object which implements the zygote. The ZygoteMain function,
@@ -106,7 +108,6 @@
   int initial_uma_sample_;
   int initial_uma_boundary_value_;
 };
-
 }  // namespace content
 
 #endif  // CONTENT_ZYGOTE_ZYGOTE_H_
diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_main_linux.cc chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_main_linux.cc
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/content/zygote/zygote_main_linux.cc	2012-05-30 03:46:27.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/content/zygote/zygote_main_linux.cc	2012-05-31 04:04:21.383792544 +0200
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 // found in the LICENSE file.
 
+#include "content/zygote/zygote_linux.h"
+
 #include <dlfcn.h>
 #include <fcntl.h>
 #include <pthread.h>
@@ -48,11 +50,6 @@
 #include <signal.h>
 #endif
 
-#if defined(CHROMIUM_SELINUX)
-#include <selinux/selinux.h>
-#include <selinux/context.h>
-#endif
-
 namespace content {
 
 // See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxZygote
@@ -64,26 +61,6 @@
 // chrooted.
 static const char kSUIDSandboxVar[] = "SBX_D";
 
-#if defined(CHROMIUM_SELINUX)
-static void SELinuxTransitionToTypeOrDie(const char* type) {
-  security_context_t security_context;
-  if (getcon(&security_context))
-    LOG(FATAL) << "Cannot get SELinux context";
-
-  context_t context = context_new(security_context);
-  context_type_set(context, type);
-  const int r = setcon(context_str(context));
-  context_free(context);
-  freecon(security_context);
-
-  if (r) {
-    LOG(FATAL) << "dynamic transition to type '" << type << "' failed. "
-                  "(this binary has been built with SELinux support, but maybe "
-                  "the policies haven't been loaded into the kernel?)";
-  }
-}
-#endif  // CHROMIUM_SELINUX
-
 // With SELinux we can carve out a precise sandbox, so we don't have to play
 // with intercepting libc calls.
 #if !defined(CHROMIUM_SELINUX)
diff -ru chromium-21.0.1155.2/ipc/ipc_platform_file.cc chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/ipc/ipc_platform_file.cc
--- chromium-21.0.1155.2/ipc/ipc_platform_file.cc	2012-05-30 03:46:50.000000000 +0200
+++ chromium-21.0.1155.2.new/ipc/ipc_platform_file.cc	2012-05-30 16:42:11.432999915 +0200
@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
 #include <unistd.h>
 #endif
 
+#if defined(OS_POSIX)
+#include <unistd.h>
+#endif
+
 namespace IPC {
 
 PlatformFileForTransit GetFileHandleForProcess(base::PlatformFile handle,

[-- Attachment #3: selinux-gcc-4.7.patch.sig --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 287 bytes --]