| 1 |
Which 8< scissors... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
begin quote |
| 4 |
On Wed, 22 May 2002 14:44:53 +1200 |
| 5 |
Lars Pechan <lars.pechan@××××××××××××.nz> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> I'm not clear on this... Did you bootstrap twice then? Once from |
| 9 |
> vanilla Gentoo CD gcc-2.95.3 to gcc-3.1 and then once more to rebuild |
| 10 |
> glibc with gcc-3.1? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nope, I untarred the 1.2 stage1 tarball, rsynced, updated profile, and |
| 13 |
unmasked the gcc 3.1 and texinfo from package.mask |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Then I proceeded with bootstrap, using default i686 compilator options. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If you did I'm a bit surprised as I did try that as well with those |
| 18 |
> very flags (-march=i686 -O3 -pipe) and it still crapped out in the |
| 19 |
> same place?? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Oh, didn't do that for me at all.... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> If you didn't then you have a glibc that was built by gcc-2.95.3. I'm |
| 24 |
> not fully up to speed on potential abi incompatibilities but isn't |
| 25 |
> that asking for trouble? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
No, the bootstrap will first build |
| 28 |
baselayout: gettext : binutils : gcc |
| 29 |
then |
| 30 |
glibc baselayout gettext binutils gcc |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
and each step of gcc will build gcc 3 times. just to make sure it all |
| 33 |
works. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I have seen comments in various places (incl. the LFS source Wilbert |
| 37 |
> was refering to) that glibc should be built with a plain vanilla gcc |
| 38 |
> without any optimization at all but then you see others who seem to be |
| 39 |
> running quite happily with glibcs that have been optimized. This seems |
| 40 |
> a particularly thorny issue as some optimizations affect the abi |
| 41 |
> (-msse -mfpmath=sse on athlons for example) and certainly this could |
| 42 |
> lead to all sorts of troubles the day you try to install a binary |
| 43 |
> package, couldn't it? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Yes, it could very well do bad things, and the glibc overrides the |
| 46 |
CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS to make sure you have -O2 on the end.. I'm afraid |
| 47 |
this isn't 100% fool proof since that wont stop your custom added |
| 48 |
-fno-recurse -fremove-harddrive -fwipe-planet or whatnot :p |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> If that's correct then the logical conclusion would be not to do any |
| 53 |
> optimization or at least take care to make sure that the abi is |
| 54 |
> unaffected? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
that's recommended.. and actually, gcc will bail out if you try to build |
| 57 |
it with too much optimization as well... not good. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> While we're on the subject am I correct in stating that any binary |
| 61 |
> package in widespread use today (Opera. JBuilder) will not run under a |
| 62 |
> gcc-3.1 system because of changes in the abi between 2.95.3 and 3.1? |
| 63 |
> (Until the vendors release new versions compiled with gcc-3.1 that |
| 64 |
> is). Or is there some sort of compatibility layer that handles this? |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
Yes, this is the case, unless you download the static packages they will |
| 67 |
have problems. I think we could hack up some compability package that |
| 68 |
built those libs only and installed them, then added it to ld.so just to |
| 69 |
get things working with binary packages, but for me, I'm quite against |
| 70 |
binary releases of things.... |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
> Sorry for the length... |
| 74 |
No problem :) |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
> /Lasse |
| 78 |
//Spider |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
begin .signature |
| 83 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 84 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 85 |
end |
Archives