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
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> M.Canales.es wrote:
Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this wee
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 Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> M.Canales.es wrote:
>>> Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>>
>> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this weekend, I'll
>> strip that stuff out
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
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:00:30 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> M.Canales.es wrote:
>> Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>>
>
> If it happens to be me that applies these patches this weekend, I'll
> strip that stuff out, too.
Jeremy, would you m
M.Canales.es wrote:
> Don't should that references be left-out until x86_64 support merge?
>
If it happens to be me that applies these patches this weekend, I'll
strip that stuff out, too.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
U
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
El Viernes, 7 de Septiembre de 2007 21:18, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Full patch series is now at
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~matthew/patches/ (see the series file
> there for the order they need to be applied in).
Is there some timeline about when that patches will be applied to trunk?
El Sábado, 8 de Septiembre de 2007 12:26, Matthew Burgess escribió:
> Thanks Jeremy, that was exactly the problem. I've uploaded the updated
> gcc.patch file. I just removed the '^' so the sed only matches what
> current trunk matches, rather than the ld-uClibc.so.0 entry as well which
> your '/
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:25:54 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> Jeremy, did you have to make any changes to the toolchain adjustment
> phase to cater for GCC-4.2.1?
>
> So I'm guessing I avoided what you're hitting now. Here's what is in trunk:
>
> gcc -
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Jeremy, did you have to make any changes to the toolchain adjustment phase to
> cater for GCC-4.2.1?
I made changes to adjusting.xml for the sake of adding compatibility for
x86_64 _before_ I upgraded to gcc 4.2.1. So I'm guessing I avoided what
you're hitting now. Here
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:12:55 -0600, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:02:40 + (UTC), Jeremy Huntwork
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matthew Burgess linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
>>> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete
> the
>> p
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 Friday August 31 2007 05:54:50 pm Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> The WITHARCH variable seems to be a configure option, but I can't find
> it in ./configure --help or with a grep of configure.
It's in ./gcc/configure --help. GCC's (and Binutils) subdirectories can have
different options than the top leve
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
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:02:40 + (UTC), Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Matthew Burgess linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
>> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete the
> patch
> series as soon as possible and
>> post it here for review.
>
> How's this comi
Matthew Burgess linuxfromscratch.org> writes:
> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete the patch
series as soon as possible and
> post it here for review.
How's this coming? Need any help?
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http:/
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:54:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I'd like to see the question answered. "I have a 64-bit system. How
>> can I build a 32-bit system?"
>
> Well, that's an easy answer. "Boot a x86 (or 32-bit) kernel and build
> for x86. The default on the x8
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:54:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I'd like to see the question answered. "I have a 64-bit system. How
> can I build a 32-bit system?"
Well, that's an easy answer. "Boot a x86 (or 32-bit) kernel and build
for x86. The default on the x86 LiveCD works perfectly."
> The
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I've been thinking of how best to get the work that Jeremy's done
> into trunk. I think what I'd prefer to see is the package upgrades
> handled separately from the 64-bit related changes. That way, I'm
> hoping it'll be clearer what each change entails. As
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 11:40:30AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete the
> patch series as soon as possible and post it here for review.
Actually, this is good that you're doing it this way. I just noticed
something that I'm surpr
On 8/31/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete the
> patch series as soon as possible and post it here for review.
Very sane, and I applaud your efforts to keep the diffs nice and clean
instead of dropping a patchbom
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 11:40:30AM -0600, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Does this sound sane to everyone? If so, I'll endeavour to complete the
> patch series as soon as possible and post it here for review.
Yes, that sounds reasonable. Perhaps by the time you're ready to do the
x86_64 bits, we can
Hi guys,
I've been thinking of how best to get the work that Jeremy's done into trunk.
I think what I'd prefer to see is the package upgrades handled separately from
the 64-bit related changes. That way, I'm hoping it'll be clearer what each
change entails. As such, I've started working on a
37 matches
Mail list logo
