Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:39:49 -0400 "Douglas J. Hunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Friday 07 September 2001 12:02, Roger Oberholtzer babbled: | | > For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE | > folk changed this in the kde2.2 release? | | are you sure you parsed that right? the release notes and the lists say NOT | to use 3.x for 2.2 final.. I read this in 2.2beta1, not in the final release notes. Gee, and here I went and compiled 2.2 final with 3.0. Of course, other concerns have kept me from seeing if it all works. Like kdm and the associated script hell when mixing kde2.2 and an originally eD 2.4 install. And the wife giving me access to the machine once evey other new moon... -- = Roger Oberholtzer E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OPQ Systems AB WWW: http://www.opq.se Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43 Phone: Int + 46 8 314223 115 32 Stockholm Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 Sweden Fax: Int + 46 8 302602 ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Sunday 09 September 2001 09:48, Tim Wunder babbled: > I'm getting error output during the compile process, for example: > "../../gcc-2.95.3/gcc/toplev.c:1179: warning: initialization from > incompatible pointer type" like it says... warning.. > > All the erros that I've noticed were "incompatible pointer type" > Should I not care about it? > If I should be concerned, I'll re-compile, capture and post the error > output. when the make bootstrap finished type 'echo $?' if it comes back with a zero, you are good to go -- Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778 Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://linux.nf/ Brainbench Linux Administration Certified ~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~ Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous? -- Calvin ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
Previously, Douglas J. Hunley chose to write: > On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled: > > How tough is the move? > > not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version, > make install > > done I'm getting error output during the compile process, for example: "../../gcc-2.95.3/gcc/toplev.c:1179: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type" All the erros that I've noticed were "incompatible pointer type" Should I not care about it? If I should be concerned, I'll re-compile, capture and post the error output. Thanks, Tim ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
Previously, Douglas J. Hunley chose to write: > On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled: > > How tough is the move? > > not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version, > make install > > done According to the readme included with gcc, you execute the configure command from the objdir. extract source to sourcedir mk objdir cd objdir /configure Is that not as important as the readme seems to indicate? Regards, Tim ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Friday 07 September 2001 23:22, Shawn Tayler babbled: > How tough is the move? not very. download it, ./configure, make bootstrap, rpm -e the old version, make install done -- Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778 Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://linux.nf/ Brainbench Linux Administration Certified ~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~ "To make a bad day worse, spend it wishing for the impossible." -Calvin ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:38:46 -0400, Douglas J. Hunley wrote: >you really should make the move to 2.95.3... it has some fixes that will be >necessary should you later choose to use later versions of other things >(glibc 2.2.4 comes to mind from a discussion on LFS lists...) How tough is the move? stayler ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:02, Roger Oberholtzer babbled: > For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE > folk changed this in the kde2.2 release? are you sure you parsed that right? the release notes and the lists say NOT to use 3.x for 2.2 final.. -- Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778 Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://linux.nf/ Brainbench Linux Administration Certified ~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~ I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks. ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:00, Tim Wunder babbled:
> On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why
> not that?"
I saw that..
> Meaning 2.95.3 is latest stable release
>
> In fact I don't even see any mention of 2.96.r.
2.96 is a bastard child of RedHat's... it never offically existed. It was a
snapshot of the 3.x development tree that they chose to ship. avoid it at all
costs...
you really should make the move to 2.95.3... it has some fixes that will be
necessary should you later choose to use later versions of other things
(glibc 2.2.4 comes to mind from a discussion on LFS lists...)
--
Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778
Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://linux.nf/
Brainbench Linux Administration Certified
~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~
panic("Oh boy, that early out of memory?");
2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/mips/mm/init.c
___
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 12:00:37 -0400 Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why not | that?" For kde2.2beta1, there was a note that gcc3 needed to be used. Have the KDE folk changed this in the kde2.2 release? -- = Roger Oberholtzer E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OPQ Systems AB WWW: http://www.opq.se Erik Dahlbergsgatan 41-43 Phone: Int + 46 8 314223 115 32 Stockholm Mobile: Int + 46 733 621657 Sweden Fax: Int + 46 8 302602 ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
Douglas J. Hunley wrote: > On Friday 07 September 2001 09:01, Tim Wunder babbled: > >>Hi folks, >>It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc >>2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This >>is claimed to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite >>checking Athlon in the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera list that >>I didn't cross-post here). So the task at hand now is to upgrade gcc to a >>version that supports athlon optimizations. >>It appears that the SxS doesn't have anything listed for updating gcc. So >>before I download the latest 3.01 gcc, I'm looking for caveats from the >>bright folks on this list. Should I use 3.01, or another version (or just >>use the one i have and live with i686 optimizations)? What, other than gcc, >>should get updated in the process? Should I update glibc, too? >>As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated, >>Tim >> > > I (like Llama) wouldn't use a 3.x release yet. In theory, 2.95.4 will have > Athlon support. Upgrading gcc is painless.. see > http://hunley.homeip.net/linux_sources/utils/gcc_notes > > on another note.. you can compile code that is optimized for athlons without > upgrading gcc... simply use the following as both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS when > compiling stuff: > -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -march=i686 -mcpu=i686 > -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops > -fexpensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns2 -mwide-multiply > > (you might want to omit the -O6 though as some stuff gets flaky with it) > ! > > On the KDE list, I asked: "Why 2.96? Current version seems to be 3.01. Why not that?" And got this response from someone other than the guy recommending 2.96: If you go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.3.html you will read "The whole suite has been extensively regression tested and package tested. It should bereliable and suitable for widespread use." and If you go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-3.0/ you will not find any such indorsment. Meaning 2.95.3 is latest stable release In fact I don't even see any mention of 2.96.r. If 2.95.3 is the "latest stable release" and it's been around since March of this year and Caldera chose not to inlude it in their distro, perhaps it's best that I leave well enough alone and live with i686 optimization. Of course, I'll be trying your CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS recommendation, too. Regards, Tim ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
On Friday 07 September 2001 09:01, Tim Wunder babbled: > Hi folks, > It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc > 2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This > is claimed to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite > checking Athlon in the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera list that > I didn't cross-post here). So the task at hand now is to upgrade gcc to a > version that supports athlon optimizations. > It appears that the SxS doesn't have anything listed for updating gcc. So > before I download the latest 3.01 gcc, I'm looking for caveats from the > bright folks on this list. Should I use 3.01, or another version (or just > use the one i have and live with i686 optimizations)? What, other than gcc, > should get updated in the process? Should I update glibc, too? > As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated, > Tim I (like Llama) wouldn't use a 3.x release yet. In theory, 2.95.4 will have Athlon support. Upgrading gcc is painless.. see http://hunley.homeip.net/linux_sources/utils/gcc_notes on another note.. you can compile code that is optimized for athlons without upgrading gcc... simply use the following as both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS when compiling stuff: -O6 -fomit-frame-pointer -ffast-math -march=i686 -mcpu=i686 -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -malign-functions=4 -funroll-loops -fexpensive-optimizations -fschedule-insns2 -mwide-multiply (you might want to omit the -O6 though as some stuff gets flaky with it) ! -- Douglas J. Hunley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - Linux User #174778 Admin: http://hunley.homeip.net/Admin: http://linux.nf/ Brainbench Linux Administration Certified ~~ Now offering Linux admin services for the home user ~~ NON-SMOKING AREA: If we see you smoking, we will assume you are on fire and promptly put you out. ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Re: Updating gcc, et all
I'd be a bit hesitant to upgrade to gcc-3.x, as i've heard it still has some issues compiling certain types of binaries. Do you know if a slightly higher or slightly lower 2.9x version has athlon support? --- Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that > gcc 2.95, > which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This is > claimed > to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite checking > Athlon in > the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera list that I didn't > cross-post > here). So the task at hand now is to upgrade gcc to a version that > supports > athlon optimizations. > It appears that the SxS doesn't have anything listed for updating gcc. > So > before I download the latest 3.01 gcc, I'm looking for caveats from > the bright > folks on this list. Should I use 3.01, or another version (or just use > the one > i have and live with i686 optimizations)? What, other than gcc, should > get > updated in the process? Should I update glibc, too? > As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated, = Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux FAQ & Step-by-step help:http://netllama.ipfox.com . __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger http://im.yahoo.com ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
Updating gcc, et all
Hi folks, It seems, at least from a response on the kde-linux list I'm on, that gcc 2.95, which eW31 has, does not contain optimization code for athlon. This is claimed to be the cause of my system architecture being i686 despite checking Athlon in the kernel make xconfig (a post on the Caldera list that I didn't cross-post here). So the task at hand now is to upgrade gcc to a version that supports athlon optimizations. It appears that the SxS doesn't have anything listed for updating gcc. So before I download the latest 3.01 gcc, I'm looking for caveats from the bright folks on this list. Should I use 3.01, or another version (or just use the one i have and live with i686 optimizations)? What, other than gcc, should get updated in the process? Should I update glibc, too? As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated, Tim ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
