Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 11:33 AM, LFS Trac wrote: #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host -+-- Reporter: dj@… | Owner: lfs-book@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.2 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal |Keywords: -+-- Host system is again Gentoo Live DVD 2011. I had to add --without-gpm to the configure flags to get around it. (I tried updating the ticket in trac, but that required me resetting my password and now the site puts me in an infinite redirect loop... trac is being wonky) Anyway, unless ncurses is doing something non-standard to detect gpm, I don't think this should be happening. The point of the chapter 5 toolchain is to remove /usr or anything like it from the search paths. DJ can you dig in the logs to find out what ncurses is doing to detect gpm? In the meantime, I've downloaded the gentoo live dvd and am going to play a bit. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 11:33 AM, LFS Trac wrote: #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host -+-- Reporter: dj@… | Owner: lfs-book@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.2 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal |Keywords: -+-- Host system is again Gentoo Live DVD 2011. I had to add --without-gpm to the configure flags to get around it. (I tried updating the ticket in trac, but that required me resetting my password and now the site puts me in an infinite redirect loop... trac is being wonky) There is a problem in trac when changing passwords. We've found that the easiest way is to just create a new userid. That is obviously not optimal, but we are going to port everything to a new server in the not too distant future and will update all the apps like Trac then. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 04/22/2012 12:19 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 11:33 AM, LFS Trac wrote: #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host -+-- Reporter: dj@… | Owner: lfs-book@… Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.2 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal |Keywords: -+-- Host system is again Gentoo Live DVD 2011. I had to add --without-gpm to the configure flags to get around it. (I tried updating the ticket in trac, but that required me resetting my password and now the site puts me in an infinite redirect loop... trac is being wonky) Anyway, unless ncurses is doing something non-standard to detect gpm, I don't think this should be happening. The point of the chapter 5 toolchain is to remove /usr or anything like it from the search paths. DJ can you dig in the logs to find out what ncurses is doing to detect gpm? In the meantime, I've downloaded the gentoo live dvd and am going to play a bit. JH As it turns out, it was a problem with the host. /usr/lib64/libgpm.so is not a symlink, but rather a linker script that points to another linker script that points to an invalid destination (ie: no 64bit libgpm). I was going to close as invalid, but then I wondered if we want our chapter 5 ncurses linked to something that does not exist in the chroot environment? -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 2:23 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: As it turns out, it was a problem with the host. /usr/lib64/libgpm.so is not a symlink, but rather a linker script that points to another linker script that points to an invalid destination (ie: no 64bit libgpm). I was going to close as invalid, but then I wondered if we want our chapter 5 ncurses linked to something that does not exist in the chroot environment? Yes, that's the point, we don't - and I don't think the chapter 5 toolchain should even be aware of what is in /usr so if it is, there's a problem somewhere. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 2:25 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 2:23 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: As it turns out, it was a problem with the host. /usr/lib64/libgpm.so is not a symlink, but rather a linker script that points to another linker script that points to an invalid destination (ie: no 64bit libgpm). I was going to close as invalid, but then I wondered if we want our chapter 5 ncurses linked to something that does not exist in the chroot environment? Yes, that's the point, we don't - and I don't think the chapter 5 toolchain should even be aware of what is in /usr so if it is, there's a problem somewhere. I was just able to reproduce your issue. Going to dig in a bit more now and see if we can't find out why it's being found at all. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
DJ Lucas wrote: As it turns out, it was a problem with the host. /usr/lib64/libgpm.so is not a symlink, but rather a linker script that points to another linker script that points to an invalid destination (ie: no 64bit libgpm). sarcasmNow, isn't that special./sarcasm I was going to close as invalid, but then I wondered if we want our chapter 5 ncurses linked to something that does not exist in the chroot environment? It only makes a difference if we are going to actually use ncurses functionality between the time we bould it in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. Otherwise we are just linking to the libraries. However, I don't have a problem with adding --without-gpm to just avoid questions like this. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 2:35 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: It only makes a difference if we are going to actually use ncurses functionality between the time we bould it in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6. Otherwise we are just linking to the libraries. However, I don't have a problem with adding --without-gpm to just avoid questions like this. Please wait before doing this... I actually have a problem with it ;) it shouldn't be happening. Let me dig in a bit first, please before we make any decisions here. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 2:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On 4/22/12 2:25 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On 4/22/12 2:23 PM, DJ Lucas wrote:
As it turns out, it was a problem with the host. /usr/lib64/libgpm.so is
not a symlink, but rather a linker script that points to another linker
script that points to an invalid destination (ie: no 64bit libgpm). I
was going to close as invalid, but then I wondered if we want our
chapter 5 ncurses linked to something that does not exist in the chroot
environment?
Yes, that's the point, we don't - and I don't think the chapter 5
toolchain should even be aware of what is in /usr so if it is, there's a
problem somewhere.
I was just able to reproduce your issue. Going to dig in a bit more now
and see if we can't find out why it's being found at all.
This is why it's seeing it:
checking if you want to link with the GPM mouse library... maybe
checking for gpm.h... yes
echo 'main(){}' | /tools/bin/gcc -x c - -v -Wl,--verbose
...
#include ... search starts here:
#include ... search starts here:
/mnt/lfs/build/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/include
/mnt/lfs/build/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/include-fixed
/tools/include
/usr/include
End of search list.
...
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 2:49 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote: Solution: add the switch --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include to gcc-pass2 configure command. I've been building ten times on various (virtual) hosts with this switch without a problem. I believe the proposed sysroot method also fixes this. I'm just verifying this specific test case now. At the least, LFS should do the above (if that does indeed completely remove /usr/include from the header search paths), but I'd still like to see it go the sysroot route due to the fact that it avoids the startfile revert patch and the first adjusting the toolchain phase. I've built the jh branch, but I haven't had time to study it yet. I'm still trying to clean up some old tickets for BLFS. I'll try to get to the sysroot method soon. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 2:52 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
On 4/22/12 2:49 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
Solution:
add the switch --with-native-system-header-dir=/tools/include to
gcc-pass2 configure command.
I've been building ten times on various (virtual) hosts with this switch
without a problem.
I believe the proposed sysroot method also fixes this. I'm just
verifying this specific test case now.
Verified: the jh branch (with the sysroot method) builds correctly,
ncurses doesn't see gpm.h
echo 'main(){}' | /tools/bin/gcc -x c - -v -Wl,--verbose
#include ... search starts here:
#include ... search starts here:
/mnt/lfs/build/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/include
/mnt/lfs/build/tools/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.0/include-fixed
/tools/include
End of search list.
So to be clear, Pierre is correct in that there is a serious flaw in the
current LFS SVN. In fact, until this gets resolved LFS SVN should be
considered completely broken. Having a chapter 5 toolchain that searches
/usr/include kills the purpose of building a separate temporary
toolchain at all.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 3:48 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
cp gcc/Makefile.in{,.orig}
sed '/^CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR/s@= .*@= /tools/include@' \
gcc/Makefile.in.orig gcc/Makefile.in
cp gcc/cppdefault.c{,.orig}
sed '/#define STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR/s@/usr/include@0@g' \
gcc/cppdefault.c.orig gcc/cppdefault.c
Well the STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR constant isn't even used by gcc-4.7.0, so
I've already dropped that from the jh branch:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~jhuntwork/sysroot/chapter05/gcc-pass2.html
The CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is used for pass1 gcc and
NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is used for pass2. If the configure switch you
propose does effectively the same thing for pass2, I don't mind using it.
What about pass1? Is there a corresponding switch? I haven't
investigated 4.7.0 too deeply yet.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So to be clear, Pierre is correct in that there is a serious flaw in the current LFS SVN. In fact, until this gets resolved LFS SVN should be considered completely broken. Having a chapter 5 toolchain that searches /usr/include kills the purpose of building a separate temporary toolchain at all. s/serious// I agree that we need to fix this, but I think the actual problem is more potential than serious. It's unlikely that any headers incorrectly included will make the generated system work incorrectly without being highlighted like the gpm issue. I think we can get this fixed in the next couple of days. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 3:48 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
I think the sysroot method can be simplified if using the switch above:
you do not even need the part:
cp gcc/Makefile.in{,.orig}
sed '/^CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR/s@= .*@= /tools/include@' \
gcc/Makefile.in.orig gcc/Makefile.in
cp gcc/cppdefault.c{,.orig}
sed '/#define STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR/s@/usr/include@0@g' \
gcc/cppdefault.c.orig gcc/cppdefault.c
Suppressing that and adding the switch (to both gcc passes) to the
sysroot method,
I have been able to build and test that there is no differences in the
resulting system
with the SVN build (with switch).
Nice, it looks like you're right. This is in the gcc/configure script:
CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR='$(TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT)$${sysroot_headers_suffix}$(NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR)'
So CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR should get set correctly if we've already
specified NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR, which is what gets set via your switch.
I'll just fix up the jh branch source and give another run and compare
results.
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 04/22/2012 03:06 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So to be clear, Pierre is correct in that there is a serious flaw in the current LFS SVN. In fact, until this gets resolved LFS SVN should be considered completely broken. Having a chapter 5 toolchain that searches /usr/include kills the purpose of building a separate temporary toolchain at all. s/serious// I agree that we need to fix this, but I think the actual problem is more potential than serious. It's unlikely that any headers incorrectly included will make the generated system work incorrectly without being highlighted like the gpm issue. I think we can get this fixed in the next couple of days. -- Bruce Well, I wasn't going to stick with it as I actually intended to use this one for a couple of months. I just restarted the build on the affected host with Pierre's proposed change. Should be able to give a thumbs up in about 45 minutes or so. I know it only affects SVN as I completed a 7.1 build not even a month ago using the same host. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
Le 22/04/2012 22:09, Jeremy Huntwork a écrit :
On 4/22/12 3:48 PM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
I think the sysroot method can be simplified if using the switch above:
you do not even need the part:
cp gcc/Makefile.in{,.orig}
sed '/^CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR/s@= .*@= /tools/include@' \
gcc/Makefile.in.origgcc/Makefile.in
cp gcc/cppdefault.c{,.orig}
sed '/#define STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR/s@/usr/include@0@g' \
gcc/cppdefault.c.origgcc/cppdefault.c
Suppressing that and adding the switch (to both gcc passes) to the
sysroot method,
I have been able to build and test that there is no differences in the
resulting system
with the SVN build (with switch).
Nice, it looks like you're right. This is in the gcc/configure script:
CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR='$(TARGET_SYSTEM_ROOT)$${sysroot_headers_suffix}$(NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR)'
So CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR should get set correctly if we've already
specified NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR, which is what gets set via your switch.
I'll just fix up the jh branch source and give another run and compare
results.
JH
Also the doc says:
`--with-native-system-header-dir=DIRNAME'
Specifies that DIRNAME is the directory that contains native system
header files, rather than `/usr/include'. This option is most
useful if you are creating a compiler that should be isolated from
the system as much as possible. It is most commonly used with the
`--with-sysroot' option and will cause GCC to search DIRNAME
inside the system root specified by that option.
-
so it is adapted to your sysroot method...
Regards
Pierre
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 4/22/12 4:09 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So CROSS_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR should get set correctly if we've already specified NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR, which is what gets set via your switch. I'll just fix up the jh branch source and give another run and compare results. Looks good, committing the change to the jh branch. Thanks Pierre. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
Le 22/04/2012 23:07, Jeremy Huntwork a écrit : Looks good, committing the change to the jh branch. Thanks Pierre. You're welcome. I take the opportunity to thank you, all the editors of those wonderfull books (lfs and blfs). I really enjoy interacting with you. You're reactive, knowlegeable and efficient. Regards Pierre -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On 04/22/2012 04:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So, I'm seeing that you have the aforementioned switches in both pass 1 and pass 2 gcc and I'm trying to understand exactly why. In pass1 it simply speeds up the build, the explanation is incorrect. They shouldn't be needed by pass2. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On Sun, 2012-04-22 at 17:35 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So given that... I don't see a need to have those switches for either pass 1 or pass 2. Given your reasoning, I don't see why they're needed either, but #2723 explicitly mentioned link errors (although conveniently failed to copy and paste them). Now, admittedly, I never saw those errors myself, but then I only test on one arch on one host distro, and there have been several occasions where things like this have been host specific. I don't mind taking these out from trunk, and hope that any host-specific issues are picked up during the next RC phase, if not before. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On 4/22/12 5:59 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: On 04/22/2012 04:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So, I'm seeing that you have the aforementioned switches in both pass 1 and pass 2 gcc and I'm trying to understand exactly why. In pass1 it simply speeds up the build How does it speed up the build? JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On 4/22/12 6:00 PM, Matt Burgess wrote: Given your reasoning, I don't see why they're needed either, but #2723 explicitly mentioned link errors (although conveniently failed to copy and paste them). Now, admittedly, I never saw those errors myself, but then I only test on one arch on one host distro, and there have been several occasions where things like this have been host specific. I don't mind taking these out from trunk, and hope that any host-specific issues are picked up during the next RC phase, if not before. Thanks, I removed them from the jh branch. FYI, Bruce set up a job to render the jh branch daily, should be located here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/jh/ For the moment it only has the changes already discussed. In the future, it may have more radical changes, we'll see. :) JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] [lfs-book] [LFS Trac] #3066: Chapter 5 ncurses fails with (old?) gpm on host
On 04/22/2012 03:25 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: Should be able to give a thumbs up in about 45 minutes or so. Yeah, good. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 6:00 PM, Matt Burgess wrote: Given your reasoning, I don't see why they're needed either, but #2723 explicitly mentioned link errors (although conveniently failed to copy and paste them). Now, admittedly, I never saw those errors myself, but then I only test on one arch on one host distro, and there have been several occasions where things like this have been host specific. I don't mind taking these out from trunk, and hope that any host-specific issues are picked up during the next RC phase, if not before. Thanks, I removed them from the jh branch. FYI, Bruce set up a job to render the jh branch daily, should be located here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/jh/ For the moment it only has the changes already discussed. In the future, it may have more radical changes, we'll see. :) Your branch, your rules. :) -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On 04/22/2012 05:05 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: On 4/22/12 5:59 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: On 04/22/2012 04:35 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: So, I'm seeing that you have the aforementioned switches in both pass 1 and pass 2 gcc and I'm trying to understand exactly why. In pass1 it simply speeds up the build How does it speed up the build? JH I'm not entirely positive, it's been a few years, but there was no need to compile unnecessary additions that eat up time. Granted, it is a very small savings in the grand scheme. That was the goal of those switches and several others at the time that GCC started requiring mpc, mpfr, and gpc (and when it was decided to exclude Cloog and PPL). -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[lfs-dev] minor
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] minor
On 4/22/12 6:41 PM, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: woops, that wasn't supposed to send. Turned out to be a very minor thread after all. :) JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] --without-ppl and --without-cloog
On 4/22/12 6:44 PM, DJ Lucas wrote: I'm not entirely positive, it's been a few years, but there was no need to compile unnecessary additions that eat up time. Granted, it is a very small savings in the grand scheme. That was the goal of those switches and several others at the time that GCC started requiring mpc, mpfr, and gpc (and when it was decided to exclude Cloog and PPL). Yeah, it would add _slightly_ to the compile time to link in those features, but I can't see it making a difference on modern hardware. Whether the resultant gcc actually operates slower is another question, although I doubt that too is significant, if so. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Summary of changes in JH toolchain proposal
On 04/22/2012 10:36 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: I've been studying Jeremy's changes and want to summarize them here. Snip complete summary Asking for a technical review? :-) Both methods achieve the goal! Now for a quick, non-technical overview of the effect on the book. You have reduced the amount of lines in command blocks in the book by 23, added 15 lines, and removed a page, so complexity of the typed commands is reduced slightly (that could be taken as a negative, but the removed page is explained again in chapter 6 and really doesn't compare with the next point). We gain the added educational value of explaining how and why a sysroot build works for us--something that can be, and is used outside of LFS. One really common stumbling block is removed (first toolchain adjustment). Finally, two commands that are regarded as hacks by some are removed (-B, and this is subjective). Assuming the result has proven sane by comparison testing (and I'm pretty sure that has already been done), the only possible downside that I see is the lost explanation of -B, which I don't recall having seen outside of LFS, but I really haven't looked either. -- DJ Lucas -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
