| 1 |
On 05/07/23 14:50, Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jules Colding schreef: |
| 3 |
> > "emerge --sync && emerge -vauDN" today gave me the following error. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
[snip] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Well, since I just (literally, 10 minutes ago) emerged |
| 8 |
> mozilla-firefox-1.0.6-r2, and had no problems on a 32-bit system, I must |
| 9 |
> suspect that this is a 64-bit issue. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In that regard, I see at least one thing in your emerge info that has |
| 12 |
> been called into question for 64-bit users in recent threads: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> CFLAGS="-march=k8 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I am, of course, not a 64-bit user, so I don't know anything about this, |
| 17 |
> but I have seen several responses to similar questions that suggest that |
| 18 |
> the correct flag is |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> march=amd64 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Looking at gcc's info page, there is no amd64 target. The only ones I |
| 23 |
can find that seems reasonable are k8 and athlon64. I use k8 myself and |
| 24 |
haven't had _any_ problems with it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Oh, and despite what Patrick said, I think you were right to post here |
| 27 |
> first-- no need to clog up b.g.o with what might be a configuration |
| 28 |
> problem and waste developer's time closing an invalid bug. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I really don't see how this could be a configuration problem, since it |
| 31 |
would have complained about an erroneous compilation flag if it was the |
| 32 |
k8 thing that was at fault... And missing files (which the compilation |
| 33 |
error points at) sounds pretty much like a valid bug to me... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> I think it's always wise to try to make sure that it really is a bug |
| 36 |
> before posting it. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Of course, but looking at the ordinary response from developers to these |
| 39 |
kind of emails, I'd guess that b.g.o is where they want the report, not |
| 40 |
here... |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> And it seems to me that if there is a bug, it might be a *documentation* |
| 43 |
> bug (because the other person who mentioned using march=k8 said that |
| 44 |
> that was the recommendation of the docs, but that seems to no longer be |
| 45 |
> the case, if people using this flag are regularly receiving compilation |
| 46 |
> errors). |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Documentation bug? Not recommended by the docs any more? |
| 49 |
You might want to actually try to find information about the subjects |
| 50 |
you respond to. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Straight out of the AMD64 Gentoo Handbook: |
| 53 |
"AMD64 users who want to use a native 64 bit system should use |
| 54 |
-march=k8" |
| 55 |
Combining that cite with the information from the gcc info page, I'm |
| 56 |
pretty sure it's not a "documentation bug". |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Regards, |
| 60 |
Patrick Börjesson |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
PGP signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x21792A5D |
| 63 |
PGP fingerprint: 74AF D4EF 6BDE CF77 16BE 6A29 CDB8 7607 2179 2A5D |
Archives