| 1 |
Simon Stelling posted <43EB0293.3020406@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
| 2 |
Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:51:31 +0100: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> AFAIK the toolchain eclass doesn't strip -Os, it replaces -O? with -O2, which |
| 5 |
> also enables -fomit-frame-pointer. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I hadn't thought about that, but come to think of it, I think you are |
| 8 |
indeed correct. I'll have to check, and may just be removing it, as my |
| 9 |
CFLAGS string is certainly long enough without it! <g> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> On amd64 frame-pointers aren't needed to do debugging, so it doesn't |
| 12 |
> have any impact. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Ahh... I had wondered about that, and seen hints to that effect, but no |
| 15 |
direct statement. Good to know! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
>> There is [a bug filed]. I don't recall if I filed it or if it was |
| 18 |
>> already there, but both JH and the portage folks know about the issue. |
| 19 |
>> IIRC, the portage folks decided it was their side that needed changed, |
| 20 |
>> but that required changes to the distcc package, and I don't know how |
| 21 |
>> that has gone since I don't use distcc, except that I was slightly |
| 22 |
>> surprised to see the warning in portage 2.1 still. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Ah, very good :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I should probably look it up and see what the status is... AFAIK, eselect |
| 27 |
compiler is mostly working, but it still doesn't handle the conversion |
| 28 |
from gcc-config correctly on amd64 (and I noticed recently, with the |
| 29 |
gcc-4.1 snapshots, it doesn't remove the old config when the snapshot is |
| 30 |
upgraded, but I haven't looked into it). IIRC, tho, JH said he wasn't |
| 31 |
going to have much time for awhile, due to school I think it was, so |
| 32 |
that's kinda in suspended animation ATM. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>> That's what was nice about configcache, which was supposed to be in the |
| 35 |
>> next portage, but I haven't seen or heard anything about it for awhile, |
| 36 |
>> and the next portage, 2.1, is what I'm using. configcache seriously |
| 37 |
>> shortened that stage of the build, leaving more of it parallelized, |
| 38 |
>> but... |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
> Good news ;) |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> ferringb has been asking for testing for quite a while now and recently |
| 43 |
> he sent a mail to the portage-dev mailing list, basically saying that if |
| 44 |
> nobody steps up with a good reason, he will include the confcache patch |
| 45 |
> with the next release. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Good news indeed! =8^) Looking forward to it! |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
... I've been thinking about joining the portage list, and in fact have |
| 50 |
it subscribed here in PAN (on gmane), but I haven't actually had time to |
| 51 |
go thru the list history and get in context. Likewise with the docs list, |
| 52 |
as a number of folks have suggested I'd be good at that, what with my 600 |
| 53 |
line posts and the like. <g> |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
>> BTW, what is your opinion on -ftracer? Several devs I've noticed use |
| 56 |
>> it, but the manpage says it's not that useful without active profiling, |
| 57 |
>> which means compiling, profiling, and recompiling, AFAIK. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> I don't use it, but not for a certain reason, so I really can't comment |
| 60 |
> on this. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Probably my reason -- you just can't see from the manpage what use it |
| 63 |
would be to you. =8^) |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
I /think/ I noticed Spyderous using it, and anyone that can maintain the |
| 66 |
complexity that's xorg certainly gets my respect. I've been looking for a |
| 67 |
good non-disruptive excuse to ask him, but haven't yet found one, |
| 68 |
unfortunately. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 72 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 73 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 74 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives