From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-131273-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RRRgG-0006Rr-Ln
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:52:49 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E3F1C21C1D6;
Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E00721C1D3
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53])
by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <pandu@poluan.info>)
id 1RRReZ-002AIk-N0
for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:51:03 +0700
Received: by bkaq10 with SMTP id q10so4435359bka.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.121.1 with SMTP id ga1mr1644128bkc.60.1321635057371; Fri,
18 Nov 2011 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.74.16 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.74.16 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 08:50:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2qdGXXnDCE0_iBDBwrqJGJHei1_ZhsQN1wtREZFBmWbA_WTA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EC2B642.3010500@gmail.com>
<j9v1kh$6bi$1@dough.gmane.org>
<CAA2qdGXF9pfpsy7FvpPJtXvcDB0WJ+xD0SAURLLxsbm713FWpw@mail.gmail.com>
<201111160811.17331.stephane@22decembre.eu>
<CA+czFiDZ=2zuse5SxL9HuuG3z_v=2zKFqeV-2+=w6MyPOCpkZw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA2qdGUoK65s-ppsUuSyTP0wFA9CaMrm30K=z+wQdAGCtoRqXg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+NOQxEreM57u56kQR4YS3LoiGbi6ZY+EAmMMEN=06gO=egipw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA2qdGXXnDCE0_iBDBwrqJGJHei1_ZhsQN1wtREZFBmWbA_WTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:50:57 +0700
Message-ID: <CAA2qdGVFptuHDJN51=YGKRFFy+fZGyz5O+r+0s4RQXzrpihmaw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Upgrading gcc: both 4.4 and 4.5 needed?
From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015173ff0501e0bc404b20524fd
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info
X-Archives-Salt: 03919195-9e0a-40c3-904c-fc3d66942995
X-Archives-Hash: 36fb1271e31f48a55c165e8cb409326e
--0015173ff0501e0bc404b20524fd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Nov 18, 2011 11:35 PM, "Pandu Poluan" <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2011 10:41 PM, "Fredric Johansson" <fredric.miscmail@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> > >
-----snip
> > >
> > > I've been using USE "graphite" since gcc-4.5.3-r1 appeared. Upstream
says
> > > that graphite is stable, feature-complete, and production-ready since
4.5.3.
> > >
> > > To fully taste the effect of graphite, I even went the torturous
route of
> > > emerging gcc + libtool + binutils (in that order) twice, followed by a
> > > wholesale-rebuild of everything (emerge --emptytree), then tarballed
the
> > > result to my own "stage3.1" tarball to spare me the *huge* amount of
time
> > > required.
> > >
> > > I've deployed 3 systems with USE "graphite", and they *felt* snappier.
> > > emerge's *felt* slower, though. (no objective tests, I know).
> > >
> > > I use Gentoo as a gatewall, and there I did a wholesale-rebuild one
more
> > > time, this time specifying CFLAGS "-march=native"... and I just
couldn't be
> > > happier with the resulting performance :-)
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > >
> >
> > I might be wrong but don't you need to have the gcc's options for
> > graphite enabled to actually make use of the graphite framework? (You
> > might be using them but you haven't mentioned it.)
> >
>
> Yes. There are some CFLAGS incantations to add to fully utilize graphite,
else the optimizations would be marginal at best.
>
> That said, turning on the CFLAGS flags was a *very* involved process:
>
> 1. By default, "graphite" is disabled. So you can't directly turn on the
graphite-related CFLAGS option. You must first enable USE "graphite" and
re-emerge gcc (or upgrade, if you're still using <gcc-4.5.3). This will
pull in ppl and cloog-ppl.
>
> 2. I don't know if libtool and binutils need to be remerged, but I did it
just to be safe.
>
> 3. Now that gcc has been compiled with graphite support, you can turn on
the CFLAGS flags necessary to fully utilize graphite. WARNING: some flags
recommended by upstream *might* make some programs run worse; be careful.
(I won't have access to my servers so I can't tell you which ones exactly).
>
> 4. At this point, I want gcc itself to be optimized. So, I remerged gcc
and libtool and binutils (in that order). Might be unnecessary, but I'm
anal like that :-)
>
> 5. Finally, universe-remerge (emerge --emptytree).
>
> As you can see, steps 4 & 5 are optional. And they indeed took a
*humongous* time to complete. But I am quite satisfied with the result.
Everything felt snappier compared to older boxen that haven't been
graphite-ed :-)
>
> Of course, YMMV.
>
Okay, found a forum thread discussing graphite and the proper CFLAGS:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-850087.html
IIRC my CFLAGS looks very similar to the once @genstorm uses (scroll down
to approximately 80% down the page).
Now I never experienced *any* emerge failure, provided that I don't go
higher than MAKEOPTS="-j3". Set it higher and several packages failed
during compile. I don't know whose fault is that, but you've been warned
;-)
Rgds,
--0015173ff0501e0bc404b20524fd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p><br>
On Nov 18, 2011 11:35 PM, "Pandu Poluan" <<a href=3D"mailto:pa=
ndu@poluan.info">pandu@poluan.info</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Nov 18, 2011 10:41 PM, "Fredric Johansson" <<a href=3D=
"mailto:fredric.miscmail@gmail.com">fredric.miscmail@gmail.com</a>> wrot=
e:<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Pandu Poluan <<a href=3D"mail=
to:pandu@poluan.info">pandu@poluan.info</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ></p>
<p>-----snip</p>
<p>> > ><br>
> > > I've been using USE "graphite" since gcc-4.5.3=
-r1 appeared. Upstream says<br>
> > > that graphite is stable, feature-complete, and production-re=
ady since 4.5.3.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > To fully taste the effect of graphite, I even went the tortu=
rous route of<br>
> > > emerging gcc + libtool + binutils (in that order) twice, fol=
lowed by a<br>
> > > wholesale-rebuild of everything (emerge --emptytree), then t=
arballed the<br>
> > > result to my own "stage3.1" tarball to spare me th=
e *huge* amount of time<br>
> > > required.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I've deployed 3 systems with USE "graphite", a=
nd they *felt* snappier.<br>
> > > emerge's *felt* slower, though. (no objective tests, I k=
now).<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I use Gentoo as a gatewall, and there I did a wholesale-rebu=
ild one more<br>
> > > time, this time specifying CFLAGS "-march=3Dnative"=
;... and I just couldn't be<br>
> > > happier with the resulting performance :-)<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Rgds,<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > I might be wrong but don't you need to have the gcc's opt=
ions for<br>
> > graphite enabled to actually make use of the graphite framework? =
(You<br>
> > might be using them but you haven't mentioned it.)<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Yes. There are some CFLAGS incantations to add to fully utilize graphi=
te, else the optimizations would be marginal at best.<br>
><br>
> That said, turning on the CFLAGS flags was a *very* involved process:<=
br>
><br>
> 1. By default, "graphite" is disabled. So you can't dire=
ctly turn on the graphite-related CFLAGS option. You must first enable USE =
"graphite" and re-emerge gcc (or upgrade, if you're still usi=
ng <gcc-4.5.3). This will pull in ppl and cloog-ppl.<br>
><br>
> 2. I don't know if libtool and binutils need to be remerged, but I=
did it just to be safe.<br>
><br>
> 3. Now that gcc has been compiled with graphite support, you can turn =
on the CFLAGS flags necessary to fully utilize graphite. WARNING: some flag=
s recommended by upstream *might* make some programs run worse; be careful.=
(I won't have access to my servers so I can't tell you which ones =
exactly).<br>
><br>
> 4. At this point, I want gcc itself to be optimized. So, I remerged gc=
c and libtool and binutils (in that order). Might be unnecessary, but I'=
;m anal like that :-)<br>
><br>
> 5. Finally, universe-remerge (emerge --emptytree).<br>
><br>
> As you can see, steps 4 & 5 are optional. And they indeed took a *=
humongous* time to complete. But I am quite satisfied with the result. Ever=
ything felt snappier compared to older boxen that haven't been graphite=
-ed :-)<br>
><br>
> Of course, YMMV.<br>
></p>
<p>Okay, found a forum thread discussing graphite and the proper CFLAGS:</p=
>
<p><a href=3D"http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-850087.html">http://foru=
ms.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-850087.html</a></p>
<p>IIRC my CFLAGS looks very similar to the once @genstorm uses (scroll dow=
n to approximately 80% down the page).</p>
<p>Now I never experienced *any* emerge failure, provided that I don't =
go higher than MAKEOPTS=3D"-j3". Set it higher and several packag=
es failed during compile. I don't know whose fault is that, but you'=
;ve been warned ;-) </p>
<p>Rgds,<br>
</p>
--0015173ff0501e0bc404b20524fd--