Greg Schafer wrote:
> One of the downsides of using `-march=' by itself is that it implies
> `-mtune='. Therefore you have just tuned your libc for i486. Not good.
The upgrade to Glibc is in place, which was my only intention for
yesterday. Now that it is in place, the community can discuss what
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> echo "CFLAGS += -march=i686" > configparms
> Everything went smoothly, so unless anyone has any objections, this is
> the method I'll be dropping in, except using i486, of course. I won't
> commit for the next hour or so, however, so that will give at least some
> ti
Robert Connolly wrote:
> The 'configparms' file can exist before or after ./configure is run, in the
> build directory. I'm not sure which was looks better in the LFS book.
I just tried this, and I used it before configure, though as you say, it
shouldn't make much of a difference since it's pro
The 'configparms' file can exist before or after ./configure is run, in the
build directory. I'm not sure which was looks better in the LFS book.
robert
pgpI6nWm3zIdy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:51:03 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
>> Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
>> the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
>> This is a powerfull way to have v
Robert Connolly wrote:
> This should also work:
> ./configure...
> echo "CFLAGS += -march=i486" > configparms
> make
>
> Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
> the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
> This is a powerful
This should also work:
./configure...
echo "CFLAGS += -march=i486" > configparms
make
Instead of an Sed command. The 'configparms' file is lightly documented in
the 'INSTALL' file, and is the suggested way to override Makefile parameters.
This is a powerfull way to have very fine grained control
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Thanks for the research. I can see why you did it this way, because of
> the way CFLAGS changes through the configure script. We could also do:
>
> 's/-O2/& -march=i486/'
Well I used this sed, except I changed 486 to 686, and everything built
successfully. Checking the
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the default CFLAGS are set during the AC_PROG_CC
> autoconf macro. So, we could either add our own customized macro and
> rebuild the autotools, or just hack the already generated configure
> script. This seems to work (I just did a successful build):
>
On 9/15/07, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/15/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I suppose it might be possible to introduce the -march flag to CFLAGS
> > without specifying the whole of CFLAGS on the command line... I'll take
> > a look.
>
> For LFS, I think it
On 9/15/07, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suppose it might be possible to introduce the -march flag to CFLAGS
> without specifying the whole of CFLAGS on the command line... I'll take
> a look.
For LFS, I think it would be better if we just `sed' the -march into
the appropriate
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:16:56 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So, to summarize, I propose not using --with-arch, but use the following
>> for Glibc:
>>
>> CFLAGS="-march=i486 -O2 -pipe" ../glibc-2.6.1/configure ...etc.
>>
>> Glibc requires some sort
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 23:16:56 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, to summarize, I propose not using --with-arch, but use the following
> for Glibc:
>
> CFLAGS="-march=i486 -O2 -pipe" ../glibc-2.6.1/configure ...etc.
>
> Glibc requires some sort of optimization and -O2 seems s
Greg Schafer wrote:
> But the worst part IMHO has already been pinpointed by Bruce in that it
> will encourage novice users to play with `--with-arch=my-uber-cool-cpu'.
> This isn't bad in itself but it can lead to problems. For example, it has
> been well known for years that you cannot compile Gl
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:09:02 +1000, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But getting back on topic, I personally don't buy any of the arguments for
>> using `--with-arch=i486' listed in this ticket:
>
> OK, as I also don't want to inflict default optimisation choi
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:09:02 +1000, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But getting back on topic, I personally don't buy any of the arguments for
> using `--with-arch=i486' listed in this ticket:
OK, as I also don't want to inflict default optimisation choices on LFSers I
can see your poi
On Thursday September 6 2007 02:09:02 am Greg Schafer wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:54:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> >> There also needs to be more explanation in the text interspersed with
> >> the instructions. For instance in "5.4. GCC-4.2.1 - Pass 1" we have
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:54:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> There also needs to be more explanation in the text interspersed with
>> the instructions. For instance in "5.4. GCC-4.2.1 - Pass 1" we have:
>>
>> "Also, the --with-arch flag is only necessary for x86 machi
18 matches
Mail list logo
