| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 20:36 +0200, Adrian Frith wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 16:12 +0200, Alan Mckinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > modify CFLAGS in /etc/make.conf |
| 4 |
> > emerge -e system |
| 5 |
> > emerge -s world |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > This will rebuild your toolchain (gcc, glibc and friends) to use -O2 |
| 8 |
> > then rebuild the entire system, including the toolchain again, with -O2. |
| 9 |
> > Your current compiler was built with -O3, and you want to rebuild the |
| 10 |
> > system using a compiler compiled as -O2, hence the 2 step process. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the gcc ebuild in fact use the |
| 13 |
> "make bootstrap" method of compiling gcc? - that is: |
| 14 |
> 1. compile with installed compiler -> stage1 |
| 15 |
> 2. compile with stage1 compiler -> stage2 |
| 16 |
> 3. compile with stage2 compiler -> stage3 |
| 17 |
> 4. compare stage2 and stage3 and install stage3 if they are the same |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> If I am right, doesn't it mean that the whole "emerge -e system" step is |
| 20 |
> pointless? Couldn't one just do "emerge -u gcc" and then "emerge -e |
| 21 |
> world"? Or am I being stupid? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I believe the gcc ebuild does do a bootstrap compile, which does imply |
| 24 |
that emerge -e system is redundant. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
But, we had a huge long rambling thread on this point recently which I'd |
| 27 |
rather not rehash again :-) and IIRC the general consensus was that |
| 28 |
'emerge -e system ; emerge -e world' was the way to go, for reasons |
| 29 |
broader than just gcc. I forget the details, maybe we should both check |
| 30 |
the archives. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
What I do know is that 'emerge -e system ' is relatively quick compared |
| 33 |
to 'emerge -e world', so the extra step didn't hurt much when I recently |
| 34 |
upgraded gcc, it was something like 2 hours for the one, and 36 for the |
| 35 |
other (!) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
alan |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives