| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:21 pm Post subject: Cannot run Deer Park Alpha 1 |
 |
|
Hello everyone,
I've heard many good things about the deer park alpha for firefox, and even witnessed it running exceptionally well on a friend's computer with a virtually identical configuration. Whenever I try using the installer for alpha 1 or the latest trunk, the installer pops up at first, but then when I click "forward" for it to go to the next screen, it just closes out. I tried to run it in a terminal (I have kde 3.4), and it gave the following error:
| Code: | BokuNoSekai firefox-installer # ./firefox-installer
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081da8b0 ***
./firefox-installer: line 72: 25561 Aborted "./${BINNAME}-bin" ${1+"$@"} |
So, I decided to get the source and compile it instead. I had to configure it with "./configure --enable-application=browser". I was able to compile and install it without any error messages. When I went to run it from /usr/local/bin, nothing came up. I checked my processes and noticed that 'firefox' and 'firefox-bin' were loaded and the latter was taking up a considerable amount of memory, but I could see nothing. I tried running firefox from terminal, but it wouldn't work when i simply typed "firefox". Thus, I changed to the /usr/local/bin dir and typed ./firefox. The cursor thing hanged interminably, no error message, and I was forced to cancel out of it.
Anyone could probably tell that I am a linux novice, which is why any help would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure I'll be recommended to install deer park as a custom ebuild, but in that case I would need step-by-step directions because I have no experience with making ebuilds.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: still no success... |
|
|
I've used the installer, the bin files, and the source without success. It refuses to load anything after I install it with the latter 2 methods, and when I attempt to use the installer, I get the error mentioned in the above post. I tried installing deer park alpha 1, alpha 2, and the latest trunk with the same results.
I was recently forced, as a last resort, to return to Windows XP temporarily. This was not because of my browser situation, but I should mention that I had no problem installing deer park alpha 2. I hate to admit it, but it performs far better than any browser I've used in linux.
Any ideas, suggestions, comments--anything--would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neuron
Advocate
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| works fine for me, and I'm even on amd64, even all my extensions worked (and it's FAST) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: `~` |
|
|
neuron: I know it works fine for most everyone. My friend, who has a virtually identical setup to me, got it working without a hitch.
Does anyone recognize the error I'm dealing with? It's a general problem I have with firefox installers. I even tried the firefox 1.0.4 and it failed as well.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stalynx
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 162
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| check out this thread and see if the suggestions there are of any help. also what ver of glibc are you running? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger683
Veteran
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 1347
Location: Heffner's House
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: Cannot run Deer Park Alpha 1 |
|
|
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: |
| Code: | BokuNoSekai firefox-installer # ./firefox-installer
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081da8b0 ***
./firefox-installer: line 72: 25561 Aborted "./${BINNAME}-bin" ${1+"$@"} |
|
Two things:
1) CFLAGS
2) overclocking
the second was the cause for exactly same errors (though different package) for me, i pushed it too far with my FSB 
_________________
Retired gentoo user |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GentooBox
Veteran
Joined: 22 Jun 2003
Posts: 1168
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
try out deer park alpha 2 instead.
_________________
Encrypt, lock up everything and duct tape the rest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:44 pm Post subject: ...not there yet |
|
|
I've tried gentoo alpha 1, alpha 2, and latest trunk with no success. I tried recompiling glibc with the "nomalloccheck" use flag and nothing changed. I tried to run the firefox installer with setting MALLOC_CHECK_=1 to avoid program termination, but this also failed as one can see below.
| Code: | BokuNoSekai firefox-installer # MALLOC_CHECK_=1 ./firefox-installer
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d48 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d20 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5ac0 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5fd8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6008 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6038 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6068 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6098 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e60c8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e60f8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6128 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d98 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5dc0 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5de8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e10 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e38 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d70 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e88 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e60 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5ae0 ***
*** glibc detected *** malloc(): memory corruption (fast): 0x081e5af0 ***
./firefox-installer: line 72: 9084 Segmentation fault "./${BINNAME}-bin" ${1+"$@"} |
Tiger683: I'm not overclocking, and I don't see how cflags could affect a program that is precompiled (the firefox installer). Do you mean the cflags for glibc? This is a copy of my cflags in make.conf:
| Code: | CFLAGS="-O3 -march=pentium4 -mtune=pentium4 -fforce-addr -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fvisibility-inlines-hidden" |
BobP recommended these cflags, even though may seem optimistic they're supposed to be very stable and reliable.
Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
predatorfreak
l33t
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 708
Location: USA, Michigan.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:26 am Post subject: Re: ...not there yet |
|
|
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: | I've tried gentoo alpha 1, alpha 2, and latest trunk with no success. I tried recompiling glibc with the "nomalloccheck" use flag and nothing changed. I tried to run the firefox installer with setting MALLOC_CHECK_=1 to avoid program termination, but this also failed as one can see below.
| Code: | BokuNoSekai firefox-installer # MALLOC_CHECK_=1 ./firefox-installer
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
malloc: using debugging hooks
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d48 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d20 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5ac0 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5fd8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6008 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6038 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6068 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6098 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e60c8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e60f8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e6128 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d98 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5dc0 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5de8 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e10 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e38 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5d70 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e88 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5e60 ***
*** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x081e5ae0 ***
*** glibc detected *** malloc(): memory corruption (fast): 0x081e5af0 ***
./firefox-installer: line 72: 9084 Segmentation fault "./${BINNAME}-bin" ${1+"$@"} |
Tiger683: I'm not overclocking, and I don't see how cflags could affect a program that is precompiled (the firefox installer). Do you mean the cflags for glibc? This is a copy of my cflags in make.conf:
| Code: | CFLAGS="-O3 -march=pentium4 -mtune=pentium4 -fforce-addr -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fvisibility-inlines-hidden" |
BobP recommended these cflags, even though may seem optimistic they're supposed to be very stable and reliable.
Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ray |
Your kidding on those cflags, right? Those use so many ricer optomizations I'm suprised half of your stuff even works.
_________________
System: predatorbox
Distro: Arch Linux x86_64
Current projects: blackhole, convmedia and anything else I cook up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
predatorfreak: could you please be more specific. This is the first problem I've had with my installation. Would if work if I only recompiled glibc with less aggressive cflags? I'm surprised BobP would have made a tutorial with such a large error.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0p
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 205
Location: en_GB
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh come on, those CFLAGS are nothing for a Firefox ompilation. I compile my Firefox (I rebuild every fortnight from the CVS Trunk) with these:
| Code: | ~/[i][b].mozconfig[/b][/i]
(...)
--enable-optimize="-O3 -pipe -march=pentium4 -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -fweb -frename-registers -funroll-loops -fforce-addr -fbranch-target-load-optimize2 -funsafe-optimizations -ffast-math |
Cal me a ricer, but none of those break firefox, or have any negative effects at all. And, I am now compiling it with GCC 4.1, not sure how it will turn out yet though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neuron
Advocate
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0p wrote: | | Cal me a ricer, but none of those break firefox, or have any negative effects at all. And, I am now compiling it with GCC 4.1, not sure how it will turn out yet though. |
when you overdo it (which you do) chances are you'll only slow yourself down... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0p
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 205
Location: en_GB
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've benchmarked Firefox using various CFLAGS, same version, using the Scragz rendering test [url="http://scragz.com/tech/mozilla/test-rendering-time.php"]here[/url], and it is ~500ms less time with these optimizations, over the standard -O2 settings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neuron
Advocate
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0p wrote: | | I've benchmarked Firefox using various CFLAGS, same version, using the Scragz rendering test [url="http://scragz.com/tech/mozilla/test-rendering-time.php"]here[/url], and it is ~500ms less time with these optimizations, over the standard -O2 settings. |
whopdedoo, but you start slower, and use more memory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With my cflags, most of my memory ends up being used after I open most of my commonly used applications (~ 490/512 mb) with only about 3 mb of swap spaced used. Isn't it ideal to load as much memory as reasonably possible for faster load times and performance? After I get more ram I probably won't have to worry about swap space getting used either.
Neuron, I don't understand why this would slow startup. Could you please explain this, and maybe show us what you believe are ideal cflags? As a linux novice, I mostly followed BobP's gcc 3.4.4 gentoo installation tutorial (found on this forum under 'documentation, tips and tricks'), but I'd like to learn more about how things work in linux in addition to how to best configure/program linux.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject: forgot to mention... |
|
|
By the way, I forgot to mention that I recompiled glibc with the following pessimistic (that's the correct term, right?) cflags without success:
| Code: | CFLAGS="-O3 -march=pentium4 -mtune=pentium4 -pipe"
CXXFLAGS={CFLAGS} |
I received the same error as above. I'm using gcc 3.4.4...I don't think this should pose any problems.
Any other ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0p
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 205
Location: en_GB
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| neuron wrote: | | m0p wrote: | | I've benchmarked Firefox using various CFLAGS, same version, using the Scragz rendering test [url="http://scragz.com/tech/mozilla/test-rendering-time.php"]here[/url], and it is ~500ms less time with these optimizations, over the standard -O2 settings. |
whopdedoo, but you start slower, and use more memory |
I've got 2GB of it at the moment, not that worried  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neuron
Advocate
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: | | With my cflags, most of my memory ends up being used after I open most of my commonly used applications (~ 490/512 mb) with only about 3 mb of swap spaced used. Isn't it ideal to load as much memory as reasonably possible for faster load times and performance? After I get more ram I probably won't have to worry about swap space getting used either. |
This is agressive caching, nothing to worry about. Also in newer linux kernels free -m's "used - buffer/cache" for me isn't accurate, but the memory will be free'd if it's needed
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: | | Neuron, I don't understand why this would slow startup. Could you please explain this, and maybe show us what you believe are ideal cflags? As a linux novice, I mostly followed BobP's gcc 3.4.4 gentoo installation tutorial (found on this forum under 'documentation, tips and tricks'), but I'd like to learn more about how things work in linux in addition to how to best configure/program linux. |
BobP's standard flags are "-O2 -march=pentium -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe", which is fine. On a ton of things O2 will actually run better than O3, and it also produces smaller executables (which means less io, which means they load slightly faster).
| m0p wrote: | | I've got 2GB of it at the moment, not that worried |
yeah well your slowing down program start and that memory could be used for caching |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaymondBeautrix
n00b
Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 32
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, let me get this straight...my cflags are not the cause of deer park not working, but they are too aggressive? I'm still confused, because I have a friend with a nearly identical hardware and OS configuration as me and was able to install deer park without a problem.
Also, I would like to copy a quote from BobP's most current tutorial on gentoo installation.
| Quote: | Here are some settings for /etc/make.conf that may be worth considering. They are the actual CFLAGS that I used to build my systems and have proven reliable on multiple installations. They include extreme levels of code optimization (notice the -O3 flag), and some very safe and stable performance-enhancing CFLAGS. Depending upon your individual hardware, you may have to simplify some of the CFLAGS settings. Note that the referenced architecture in this example is Intel Pentium.
| Code: | CFLAGS="-O3 -march=pentium -fforce-addr -momit-leaf-frame-pointer -fomit-frame-pointer -ftracer -pipe"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS} -fvisibility-inlines-hidden" |
If you don't feel comfortable using such extreme levels of optimization, you can ease-up on the CFLAGS settings and fall back to a less-optimized system. This will save you some compile time, at the expense of some system performance. You'll still be getting most of the benefits of GCC 3.4.4, so this isn't a bad compromise. This may be a better approach for those who don't want to be on the bleeding edge or don't want to spend time troubleshooting.
| Code: | CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe"
CXXFLAGS=${CFLAGS} |
|
BoBP uses the more optimized cflags, as seen above, and claims it gives better performance at the expense of compile time and executable size. Neuron, would you mind elaborating on why more optimization = program startup slowdown and less optimization = better load times and performance for most applications?
Thanks,
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neuron
Advocate
Joined: 28 May 2002
Posts: 2371
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: | | Ok, let me get this straight...my cflags are not the cause of deer park not working, but they are too aggressive? I'm still confused, because I have a friend with a nearly identical hardware and OS configuration as me and was able to install deer park without a problem. |
Your cflags are not "too agressive", I'm just arguing details here really, your cflags are fine.
| RaymondBeautrix wrote: | BoBP uses the more optimized cflags, as seen above, and claims it gives better performance at the expense of compile time and executable size. Neuron, would you mind elaborating on why more optimization = program startup slowdown and less optimization = better load times and performance for most applications?
Thanks,
Ray |
Well, for example optimization types unrolling loops, loops will run faster because of fewer "jumps" backwards in a loop, which is better for a cpu, but at the same time it increases the size of the executable file.
And the bigger the executable file (and libraries), the more data it has to load from disk before running the actual program. And I know this makes prelinking confuse a lot of people (since it makes executables bigger, but speeds up program starts), but what it does is very simply load the libraries a program would load anyway. |
|
| 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
|
|
Unsupported Software
