Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Preston A. Elder" <prez@××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gcc 3.0.4 installed system
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 05:49:05
Message-Id: 1018176544.1076.32.camel@haven
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gcc 3.0.4 installed system by Bart Verwilst
1 GCC 3.0 is more standards adhering.
2
3 GCC 2.95.3 is faster (to compile) because they dont enforce certain
4 coding standard (eg. ANSI, etc). There are many things you can get away
5 with in GCC 2.95 that 3.0 wont let you get away with.
6
7 Thats what a lot of the extra compile time is doing in 3.0 -- ensuring
8 that your adhering to the standards for C/C++ -- which usually saves
9 your arse at debugging time.
10
11 I believe 3.0 also made a bunch of advances in optimization (including
12 things such as architecture specific optimizations (ala. -march=athlon),
13 so its working harder to make your code faster.
14
15 Finally, GCC 3.0 changed alot of things, such as the C++ ABI -- and now
16 they have to support both the old and new ABI's (they did this for many
17 reasons, and apparently, will do it again for 3.1). Because of this,
18 any function reference you make, it must figure out what the old and new
19 version of this function are, so it can look for it in various libraries
20 it includes -- at link time, the version that it DIDN'T need after all
21 is thrown away, and it uses the version it did (which is why you can
22 link against a version of glibc compiled with either gcc 2.95.x or
23 3.0.x).
24
25 At least, this is why I THINK GCC 3.0 is slower at compiling -- as for
26 runtime speed, there should be little difference, and if GCC did their
27 job right, binaries compiled with 3.0 should actually be faster.
28
29 On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 06:02, Bart Verwilst wrote:
30 > Howdy
31 >
32 > Yeah, i think a gentoo-1.0-gcc3.x-ix86.iso would be great!
33 > Ofcourse i'm not the person to make this, not quite my area :o)
34 >
35 > And my question still remains, is gcc 3.x slower than gcc 2.95.x? :o)
36 >
37 > See ya!
38 >
39 > On Sunday 07 April 2002 05:29, Preston A. Elder wrote:
40 > || Personally, I'd be very interested to know how you did this 'from
41 > || scratch'.
42 > ||
43 > || I myself have done this from the post-bootstrap (but pre emerge system)
44 > || stage on, but I cant bootstrap with 3.0.x, why?
45 > ||
46 > || Well, the image the ISO installs has many applications on it, not linked
47 > || statically (eg. tar, etc) -- compiling gcc3.0.4 works fine, but as soon
48 > || as it then compiles glibc 2.2.5 and installs it, nothing else works.
49 > ||
50 > || The utilities on the install image look for glibc 2.2.5 compiled with
51 > || gcc 2.95.x. So until there is an install image that has statically
52 > || linked binaries on it, I dont see how a bootstrap can be achieved using
53 > || 3.0.x compilers.
54 > ||
55 > || I too, however, have installed a 3.0.x based system. I did the
56 > || bootstrap on 2.95.3, then first thing after bootstrap, I merged gcc
57 > || 3.0.4, and then did my emerge system. As Geert said, a few problems
58 > || along the way, but not many. I too made patches for all the problems I
59 > || found, I submitted them to Geert. The patches I made are ALL backward
60 > || compatable to 2.95.3 (I believe, I've not tested this). But then, I
61 > || could also have compiled a different package set than he did.
62 > ||
63 > || On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 07:01, Geert Bevin wrote:
64 > || > Hi all,
65 > || >
66 > || > I finally installed 1.0 from scratch and decided to try it out with gcc
67 > || > 3.0.4 instead of 2.95.3. Along the way I encountered some problems, but
68 > || > surprisingly little. I've fixed everything that needed fixing and sadly
69 > || > some packages are backwards incompatible. For that reason and for the
70 > || > ease of maintenance I've created a dedicated gcc 3 profile.
71 > || >
72 > || > So, for those that want to try this out, just link the default-1.0-gcc3
73 > || > profile instead of default-1.0 to /etc/make.profile. Note that this will
74 > || > only work for installations from scratch and not for updates since
75 > || > applications that link against libstdc++ v2 require the libraries of gcc
76 > || > v2 and not gcc v3.
77 > || >
78 > || > There are still some packages that don't compile such as galeon and
79 > || > openjade, but these will be fixed in a matter of time since I need them
80 > || > ;-) Feel free to submit fixes too.
81 > || >
82 > || > Best regards,
83 > || >
84 > || > Geert Bevin
85 > || > --
86 > || > Geert Bevin Uwyn
87 > || > "Use what you need" Lambermontlaan 148
88 > || > http://www.uwyn.com 1030 Brussels
89 > || > gbevin@××××.com Tel & Fax +32 2 245 41 06
90 > || >
91 > || > _______________________________________________
92 > || > gentoo-dev mailing list
93 > || > gentoo-dev@g.o
94 > || > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
95 > ||
96 > || Thanks,
97 >
98 > --
99 > Bart Verwilst
100 > Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
101 > Gent, Belgium
102 > _______________________________________________
103 > gentoo-dev mailing list
104 > gentoo-dev@g.o
105 > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
106 --
107 PreZ
108 Systems Administrator
109 GOTH.NET
110
111 Goth Code '98: tSKeba5qaSabsaaaGbaa75KAASWGuajmsvbieqcL4BaaLb3F4
112 nId5mefqmDjmmgm#haxthgzpj4GiysNkycSRGHabiabOkauNSW
113
114 GOTH.NET - http://www.goth.net
115 Free online resource for the gothic community.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gcc 3.0.4 installed system Stacey Keast <slik@×××××××××××.net>