| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mtamizi
n00b
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 18
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bob P, I noticed you never started hald or added it to the default run level using rc-update. Why is that? I've never used hald, but I don't understand why you would add it to your USE flag if you never use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hobbit_HK
n00b
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 54
Location: Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
BOB, thank you for your hard working. you tut is really useful and wonderful! but I have some problem to ask. could you explain the CXXFLAG more detailedly ?? yes, the parameter fvisibility-inlines-hidden and fivisibility=hidden.
becuase I look for these two parameters in the online manual for GCC 3.4.3, I can not find any thing about them.,even in the options summar pages.
here is the GCC options summary pages for GCC 3.4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.3/gcc/Option-Summary.html#Option-Summary
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, by the way. the -fomit-frame-pointer option is turn on defaultly when any -On (-O1 -O2 -O3 -Os)is turn on. and the frename-registers and fweb options are turuned on when -O3 is turned on.
Thank you
Last edited by ReiserFS on Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also the specifying -march=cpu-type implies -mtune=cpu-type.
Last edited by ReiserFS on Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ReiserFS wrote: | | BOB, thank you for your hard working. you tut is really useful and wonderful! but I have some problem to ask. could you explain the CXXFLAG more detailedly ?? yes, the parameter fvisibility-inlines-hidden and fivisibility=hidden. |
thank you for your compliments. if you look through the previous posts in this thread, you'll find that we've already discussed the "reduncancy" in some of the cflags that are automatically turned on when you specify varying levels of code optimization with the -Ox flag.
you can find the CXXFLAGS described in the man pages for gcc. if you type "man gcc" at the command line, you'll find what you're looking for. the man pages for gcc are rather extensive, so it will take some thorough reading on your part. i don't think that its worth copying more documentation into this thread, so i'll refrain from copying the documentation pages and posting them here. if you have specific questions, you may want to look at some of the other threads on the board. the common questions have already been asked and answered, and there is a detailed discussion of CFLAGS in the portage and programming forum, and in the gcc 3.4.3 thread.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spinner_Kontrol
n00b
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi_sg wrote: | Bob: I stand corrected on the aggressiveness of these cflags. 
Just a little correction to the amended CXXFLAGS... there should be a space after the curly bracket that ends the CFLAGS, and before the - that starts -fvisibility-inlines-hidden. Otherwise -fvisibility-inlines-hidden will be tacked onto the last CFLAGS option as one word. 
|
naah, it's all good, notice the space before the trailling quote? the -fvisibi... will be tacked onto the end of the space making the space-fvisibil... all one word, which is a good thing!
but you're right to point it out - always better to have to many spaces between stringes than 1 not enuf  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, just small typos: in your pdf file for this tut
EDIT 1: in 5.4.3
#echo "PORT_LOGDIR=/var/log/portage" >> /etc/make.conf
this line is useless. you can get it by de-comment a line in make.conf
EDIT 2: in 5.4.3
#mkdir /var/log/portage
should be
#mkdir /mnt/gentoo/var/log/portage
you have not chroot in now!!
EDIT 3: in 5.4.3
ok, again here you should add the following line, or the emerge --sync will complain
#mkdir /mnt/gentoo/usr/local/portage
because you have turn on the "PORTDIR_OVERLAY" in make.conf
EDIT 4: in 6.6.1
#mkdir /etc/portage
this line is useless, the directory has been created by default.
I hope your tut can benifit more persons! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi_sg
Advocate
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Posts: 2969
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey another HK guy in here!!! Nice! I am from HK too. Long time ago. 
| ReiserFS wrote: | OK, just small typos: in your pdf file for this tut
EDIT 1: in 5.4.3
#echo "PORT_LOGDIR=/var/log/portage" >> /etc/make.conf
this line is useless. you can get it by de-comment a line in make.conf |
That is not true, the PORT_LOGDIR line that is commented out is in /etc/make.conf.example , and you would need to overwrite /etc/make.conf with /etc/make.conf.example before your statement applies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kimchi_sg wrote: | Hey another HK guy in here!!! Nice! I am from HK too. Long time ago.
| ReiserFS wrote: | OK, just small typos: in your pdf file for this tut
EDIT 1: in 5.4.3
#echo "PORT_LOGDIR=/var/log/portage" >> /etc/make.conf
this line is useless. you can get it by de-comment a line in make.conf |
That is not true, the PORT_LOGDIR line that is commented out is in /etc/make.conf.example , and you would need to overwrite /etc/make.conf with /etc/make.conf.example before your statement applies. |
NO, NO the simplest way to compile the make.conf is:
cp make.conf.example make.conf
Then what you will do, is to de-comment several "#" , after that
a perfect make.conf will given!! with enough comments!!
This is the best way to do this job, I am tired of typing, typing,typing...
NICE to meet you HK gentooer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ReiserFS wrote: | OK, just small typos: in your pdf file for this tut
|
Thanks, but those topics have already been addressed.
The tutorial states in plain language that the PDF file is not up to date, and will not be updated as often as this guide:
| Bob P wrote: | 12. Downloadable PDF Now Available
A copy of this Tutorial is now available in PDF format. Click Here. Please note that it may not be updated as often as this tutorial. |
I hate to point out the obvious, but you need to look at the revision date of the PDF and the revision date on the Installation Guide in the Gentoo Forum and pay attention to which one is more current.
The Revision History section of the Installation Guide mentions several changes to the guide that have been made since the PDF was published, including a major revision where the guide reverted back to the testing branch. Insofar as I cannot travel back in time, your only choices are:
1. to use the Forum Installation Guide,
2. to wait until the PDF guide is updated, or
3. to apply the subsequent revisions in the guide to the PDF document on your own.
Sorry for the inconvenience. 
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ReiserFS wrote: | NO, NO the simplest way to compile the make.conf is:
cp make.conf.example make.conf
Then what you will do, is to de-comment several "#" , after that
a perfect make.conf will given!! with enough comments!!
This is the best way to do this job, I am tired of typing, typing,typing... |
it seems absolutely trivial to initiate any discussion about how a person decides to go through the mechanical aspects of creating a line item in a configuration file. if you do not like to type the command line instruction that contatenates the make.conf file with the necessary statement, you are free to use a text editor. linux is about choice, so have it your way.
to initiate this sort of conversation in this thread seems absolutely futile and a waste of everyone's time. i hope we won't perpetuate it.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spinner_Kontrol wrote: |
naah, it's all good, notice the space before the trailling quote? the -fvisibi... will be tacked onto the end of the space making the space-fvisibil... all one word, which is a good thing! |
Spinner, thanks for your affirmation of the current state of the CFLAGS example. but don't assume that kimchi_sg is wrong, just because the CXXFLAGS statement looks right today. as it turns out, kimchi_sg was absolutely right when he pointed out a typographical error that i had made! the fact that its subsequently been corrected means that you no longer need to be on the lookout for it. 
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pencechp
n00b
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Princeton, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: Prune? |
|
|
Hey, great tutorial!
I notice that you don't ever mention in the tutorial to run an emerge -p gcc, leaving both the old i386-compiled 3.3.4 and the new i[5/6]86-compiled 3.4.3 installed in parallel. You might add a note that it's a generally good idea to remove that old compiler. Or is it that not actually a good idea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hobbit_HK
n00b
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 54
Location: Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pencechp
n00b
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Princeton, NJ
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, in that case, should you re-emerge GCC 3.3 using GCC 3.4? It just seems odd that you're leaving the original 3.3 from the stage3 tarball on a system that otherwise has such a bright and shiny toolchain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hobbit_HK
n00b
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 54
Location: Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thebigslide
l33t
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 792
Location: under a car or on top of a keyboard
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob, excellent writeup. I used the meat and potatoes to upgrade my 2.4GHz Athlon system and it's runnin' sweet. It's in the middle of the first emerge -e world. I tried this on my router which cacked with an internal compiler error when compiling gcc the first time. It's the rsync server and distfiles depository for my network so I can't take it down right now (I always seem to be recompiling something), but I'm going to just reinstall from stage 1 ala 3 following your guide in a bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iron_DragonLord
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 273
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Awesome tutorial, I'm still emerging my desktop manager though so I've yet to test it.
Anyway I'd just like to confirm that media-lib/tiff wouldn't emerge for me with "fvisiblity=hidden" cxxflag.
So just for that package I turned it off, I got it back on again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Iron_DragonLord wrote: | Awesome tutorial, I'm still emerging my desktop manager though so I've yet to test it.
Anyway I'd just like to confirm that media-lib/tiff wouldn't emerge for me with "fvisiblity=hidden" cxxflag.
So just for that package I turned it off, I got it back on again. |
thanks for the compliments, guys.
i'd like to say something about the selection of CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS. time has proven that those of you who have followed this installation guide's recommended CFLAGS haven't been having any problems. i'm glad to hear that the installtion method has helped as many people as it has.
it comes as no surprise to me that people who blindly insist on using all of the CFLAGS that i have used to build the toolkit on my system have encountered problems in using some of them to compile other ebuilds. the fact that it comes as a surprise to some of you seems to suggest that you have some misconceptions about CFLAGS. so maybe a little more needs to be said about them.
frist, if you choose to use CFLAGS that are not specfically recommended by this installation guide, then the problem lies in your selection of CFLAGS, not in the installation guide. if you choose to use CFLAGS that are not listed in the guide's sample make.conf file, you do so at your own risk.
second, this installation method is really about building a stable and optimized gentoo toolkit. the CFLAGS settings that i have used to build my systems work as advertised for building a stable and optimized toolkit -- there is no guarantee that the CFLAGS that i have used are going to work on every application that you try to comple. actually, you should expect that any advanced/optimizing collection of CFLAGS should not work on every ebuild that you encounter! (more on that later.) so i do not find it at all surprising that some of the optional CFLAGS mentioned in this guide, which provide the most optimal toolkit build, may not work with some other programs, such as X11 programs or programs that run on the X11 platform.
as much as i think it is important to build a stable gentoo installation that will run an Xorg with stability, the scope of this installation guide is about installing gentoo, not about installing and supporting Xorg packages, media viewers, etc. if you should find that there's a fundamental flaw in this installation method that absolutely prevents Xorg from installing, that would probably be an interesting thing to mention, but let me say this -- its not going to happen.
the toolkit that you build with the ebuilds in today's portage tree are sound. whether or not you are successful in compiling any ebuild not addressed in this tutorial depends entirely upon how you configure your CFLAGS to compile that individual application and how well designed the ebuild turns out to be. the fact that an image viewing ebuild isn't friendly to all of the CFLAGS that i used to build an optimized toolkit really isn't relevant to this thread -- its an issue with the ebuild.
problems with individual ebuilds that bork on any specfic CFLAGS settings are attributable to the ebuilds themselves and not to the toolkit that has been built using this installation method. that could change tomorrow, if a bad toolkit finds its way into the portage tree, but in the absense of that happening, there is nothing to worry about.
if you have problems emerging other programs after you complete your gentoo installation using this method, you really should not post about it here. the best place to address ebuild-specific problems are the appropriate forums for those applications -- in this case the Desktop Environments forum. a finicky ebuild that isn't a part of the gentoo base system doesn't really have anything to do with building an optimized toolkit or installing gentoo.
with that said, i'm glad to see that some of you have found the answer -- by customizing your CFLAGS to accomodate ebuilds that are troublemakers.
there seem to have been quite a few posts coming from new users to the forum that seem to share a common misconception about what this installation guide is supposed to do for them: they expect that this installation method should prevent them from having problems installing any software package that they should choose to install after installing Gentoo. imho, that's a rather optimistoc assumption to make. the gentoo system that you build using this tutorial is going to work just as well as any other Gentoo system (probably better!) as good as this installation guide may be, it won't prevent problems from popping up that aren't caused by it. i'm guessing that some of the new users may have a misconcepton about this because they're not familiar enough with Gentoo to know exactly where the problems lie. hopefully that will come with time.
thanks again, everyone, for the feedback!
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Prune? |
|
|
| pencechp wrote: | Hey, great tutorial!
I notice that you don't ever mention in the tutorial to run an emerge -p gcc, leaving both the old i386-compiled 3.3.4 and the new i[5/6]86-compiled 3.4.3 installed in parallel. You might add a note that it's a generally good idea to remove that old compiler. Or is it that not actually a good idea? |
| pencechp wrote: | | Well, in that case, should you re-emerge GCC 3.3 using GCC 3.4? It just seems odd that you're leaving the original 3.3 from the stage3 tarball on a system that otherwise has such a bright and shiny toolchain. |
well, i can't say that i can give you a conclusive answer about this, but i can tell you what i thought about when i wrote the tutorial. maybe somebody else will chime in with a better way to look at the problem. so from my perspective, let's think about this: the objective for this tutorial is to design a system that is as robust and failsafe as possible. let's keep that requirement in mind as we walk through the process of building our toolkit.
we start off with a very stable version of gcc 3.3.4 that comes with the stage 3 tarball. we subsequently emerge a new version of gcc 3.4.3 that we compile using gcc 3.3.4. then we compile it using gcc 3.4.3-built-on 3.3.4 to create gcc 3.4.3-built-on-3.4.3-built-with-3.3.4. finally, we recompile it again to create gcc 3.4.3 using a 3.4.3 compiler that was built with a 3.4.3 compiler.
now you suggest that we get rid of our initial stable copy of 3.3.4-built-on 3.3.4, and replace it with a copy of 3.3.4 built with 3.4.3. in deciding whether or not to do this, its important to consider the pros and cons of doing something like that:
Pros:
1. 3.3.4 built by 3.4.3 might be better
Cons:
1. 3.3.4 built by 3.4.3 might not be better
2. recompiling 3.3.4 takes alot of time, and offers undefined benefits
3. the original version of 3.3.4, if left unmolested, remains on our system as a fallback compiler for programs that may not compile with 3.4.3
4. if any unrecognized errors are introduced into our toolkit by gcc 3.4.3, recompiling 3.3.4 with 3.4.3 could compromise the integrity of our fallback compiler.
so the way i've thought about there's one potentially good reason for recompiling gcc 3.3.4, and plenty of good reasons not to. that is of course, not to say that i have all the answers -- those are just the answers that i was able to come up with.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:46 am Post subject: PDF Installation Guide Sync'd with OnLine Installation Guide |
|
|
NOTICE::
 PDF INSTALLATION GUIDE SYNCHRONIZED WITH ON-LINE INSTALLATION GUIDE.
As of the date and time stamp on this message, the PDF version has been updated to reflect all of the changes that have been applied to the on-line version at the beginning of this thread.
Have Fun!
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ReiserFS
n00b
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 39
Location: Hong Kong
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
successfully installed on IBM T42, with default settings in the tut. except -march=pentium-m thank alot!
enjoy it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimchi_sg
Advocate
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Posts: 2969
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forgot my own really successful install using this tutorial.
IBM Netvista with P4 1.7ghz, 1024MB RAM and 40GB disk.
P.S. I used my custom set of CFLAGS though.
Now compiling programs feels snappier, and acroread loads in less than 2 seconds flat! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
piwacet
Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 486
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks very much for this tutorial- it's great; I'm in the middle of installing right now!
Quick question. From reading other threads in these forums on upgrading from gcc 3.3.4 to 3.3.5, it seems some packages would not compile without first running the script:
| Code: | | fix_libtool_files.sh 3.3.4 |
Any role for a simmilar command here when we switch to gcc 3.4.3 as default compiler? Sorry if the answer is obvious, but I have not been able to figure it out. I also wasn't sure if this was the wrong thread to post in, I can re-post if necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Documentation, Tips & Tricks
