Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 02:41:54PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said: > > Consider: > > > > -Os on the x86 build? > > Back when I tested before, -Os unilaterally made things worse across > Athlon64/C2D/Atom. Note that GCC 4.4 switches -Os on for unlikely

Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12 (#2)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:56:58PM +0200, drago01 wrote: > > Note that GCC 4.4 switches -Os on for unlikely executed basic blocks and/or > > unlikely executed functions (of course profile feedback helps here a lot, > > but even without it the heuristics gets it right in many cases), so forcing > >

Re: rawhide report: 20090703 changes

On Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 12:36:25PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 07/04/2009 11:16 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:04:44 +, Rawhide Report > > wrote: > > > >> glibc-2.10.90-2 > >> --- > >> * Thu Jul 02 2009 Andreas Schwab 2.10.90-2 > >> - Update from mast

Re: prelink: is it worth it?

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:32:01AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Apparently there was some fun with prelink breaking everything in rawhide > recently: . I didn't > notice, because like Pete Zaitcev says in the comments, removing prelink is > one

Re: prelink: is it worth it?

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 05:07:05PM +0200, yersinia wrote: > But something one have to pay a security prize on not disabling it : it > render impossible to have a > centralizzated security integrity management (e.g. rfc.sf.net for example) > or one have to skip from check the prelink binary. Very b

Re: prelink: is it worth it?

On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 07:55:38AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > hot disk cache to be fair). The number of cycles for total startup is > > representative of the win. > > I'm not sure that's the case. If I can get a 50% speed up

Re: prelink: is it worth it?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 09:08:49AM +0100, Ron Yorston wrote: > Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >Also, while prelink process has been fairly expensive some years ago, it is > >much faster these days; if you haven't installed any rpms in the last day, > >most of the days the cron

Re: prelink: is it worth it?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:29:43PM +0200, yersinia wrote: > Ok. But prelink it or not a requisite for ASLR or not ? In other word, > besides performance > is disabling prelink a security matter or not ? It is not bad to have some > answer on this. ASLR happens with prelink or without. Particularl

Re: NVR bugs in rawhide

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:21:13AM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote: > I found 375 possibly wrong NVRs in rawhide. > Can you check it an fix it, please? > I'd like to file bugs for those which won't get fixed in couple weeks. > > Short explanation of detected errors follows: > > Release doesn't contain a %

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 12

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:39:35AM +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Fedora Release Enginerering is going to be starting a mass rebuild this > > Thursday, July 28th, for the following Fedora 12 features: > > - XZ RPM Payloads > > - x86 Architecture Support > > I'm a b

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 12

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:43:02AM +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > > It shouldn't be an error, this warning (rarely) has false positives and > > warns even about code that is never executed. That doesn't mean we > > shouldn't be grepping build logs for those warnings and letting maintainers > > know

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 12

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 06:29:22PM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: > > For more information, see: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild > > if I touch a package today, would it need to be rebuilt, Yes. Although we have the right binutils in the repo for an hour or three, the rig

Re: Mass rebuild for Fedora 12

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:33:46AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Axel Thimm (axel.th...@atrpms.net) said: > > if I touch a package today, would it need to be rebuilt, and if not, > > would I need to create the noautobuild file? > > Any package that builds after redhat-rpm-config-9.0.3-12.fc12 i

Re: Mozvoikko doesn't build on F12, please help

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 08/06/2009 01:49 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote: >> On 08/05/2009 01:31 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote: >>> It's also the reason why firefox doesn't yet build. >>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1581586&name=build.

Re: glibc error reports go to the bit bucket in koji

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 06:14:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I've been poking away at the mysql crashes I mentioned a few days ago, > and have just realized something that explains why I've been at such a > loss to interpret the failure reports from koji. It seems that what > has been getting trigg

Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates.

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:45:17PM +0300, Maz The Northener wrote: > I found out that after I updated my F11 a few days ago, fscanf started > missbehaving. > > I filed a bug report in bugzilla. (bug 520414) > > but since I have not heard anyone else yelling about this, I thought > that maybe this

Re: GCC var-tracking-assignments: testing and bug reports appreciated

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:32:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >Why are you backporting something like this from a non-released compiler > >into F12 _after_ Alpha and particularly _after_ the mass rebuild? > > No response? None? > > I mean, I'm not asking for much. All I want is an explanation a

Re: GCC var-tracking-assignments: testing and bug reports appreciated

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:44:22PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > the new debuginfo, this includes at least Qt and KDE (though Qt currently > trips over a bug in the var tracking and has to disable it, but I'm > confident this will get fixed quickly if it isn't already). The GNOME That is fixed a

Re: PPC/PPC64 disabled in Koji for dist-f13

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:32:59AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > [ ppc64 horror story snipped ] > > > > Well, I'm by no means wedded to ppc64; I just want *some* BE > > architecture in the primary set. Maybe a reasonable compromise would be > > to include ppc but not ppc64? T

Re: Looking into LLVM

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > Well, that plus your already voiced complaint about its dwarf generation, > which is to say that any fairly immediate adoption would also make normal > development and debugging more painful. It is not just about horrible dwarf generat

Re: RFC: proposed macro deffinitions for F-13

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:24:33PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > it should be the attached patch. the initial one was based on what gcc does > in its spec. it treats %{ix86} as not being multilib. That's because %{ix86} gcc isn't multilib capable, unlike e.g. ppc/ppc64 or sparcv9/sparc64 whe

Re: PPC not getting __WORDSIZE set

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:15:50PM -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Word of warning.. I am no too familiar with C across platforms. I am > trying to package ruby-ffi (spec file is at [1]) and when I do a scratch > build in Koji [2] it runs fine on x86 but is failing in ppc_64. It > appears that

Re: PPC not getting __WORDSIZE set

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 07:26:31PM -0500, Bryan Kearney wrote: > /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file or > directory That means you don't have glibc-devel installed for the arch you need, on ppc you likely have installed glibc-devel.ppc64 but need also glibc-devel.p

Re: PPC not getting __WORDSIZE set

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:45AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > What header defines __ILP32__ or __LP64__? Nothing defines __ILP32__, only __LP64__: $ gcc -m64 -E -dD -xc /dev/null | grep LP64 #define _LP64 1 #define __LP64__ 1 $ gcc -m32 -E -dD -xc /dev/null | grep LP64 Jakub -- fedor

Re: Are conflicts in debuginfo packages OK?

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:25:16PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Frank Ch. Eigler (f...@redhat.com) said: > > > I'm guessing that "we don't offer them multilib" means that 32-bit > > > debuginfo packages aren't meant to be installed on 64-bit systems, > > > so I'll take this to mean that I shoul

Re: memset bugs.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:43:13PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > There's some obvious bugs below in a bunch of packages. > The 2nd and 3rd arguments to memset calls are the wrong way around. > I found these after grepping through a make prep'd devel/ tree. > > 15 hits out of 100G of source code isn't

Re: rpm cpio error: prelink and SBCL

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 01:48:20PM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Jerry James wrote: > > So this is going to hit anybody who tries to package up an executable > > produced by SBCL.  Perhaps this should be noted on > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Lisp. >

Re: Mass rebuild for F13?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 05:19:20AM -0500, Andre Robatino wrote: > Is there expected to be a mass rebuild for F13 - for example, to include > GCC 4.5 (which will probably be released the first half of 2010, judging > by past release dates)? I do not intend to jump to GCC 4.5 for F13, that would mea

Re: Mass rebuild for F13?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 06:17:26AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 05:19:20AM -0500, Andre Robatino wrote: > >> Is there expected to be a mass rebuild for F13 - for example, to include > >> GCC 4.5 (which will probably be released the first half of 2010, judging > >> by past r

Re: Mass rebuild for F13?

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 07:03:13AM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > It would be nice if you folks add these little explanations as > comments next to the patches of the gcc SPEC file. (this is also a > packaging requirement [1]). 1) gcc-4.4-RH has its own svn branch in upstream repository, so the