Anyone tried gcc 4.2.0?

zxy · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject:

well, --skipfirst isn't really my favourite

it's much better to mask things that break, or to solve them. Just skipping can and eventualy will lead to broken system. At least how the --skipfirst was implemented in emerge when i used it the last time.
_________________
Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.
Lao Tzu

devsk · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject:

@zxy: this may be helpful if you have dual or quad core cpu

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147516

Ishiki · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Posts: 86

I've a problem compiling nspr (required by firefox). Don't want to mess in the forums, so I just give link:
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-563032.html

creidiki · Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:

--skipfirst is a horrid idea that should never have been implemented.

btw, could anyone see if gmp will compile with gcc-4.2.0 and binutils-2.17.50.0.16 if you add -mfpmath=sse in you CXXFLAGS?

it currently causes ld (2.17.50.0.16, .15 is fine) to segf w. gcc-4.1.2, at least on x86 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) targets: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180498

if it compiled fine for your on an x86_64 target then at least I'll know its related to x86 only, as mfpmath=sse is default for x86_64.
_________________
'((eINIT) (soor overlay))

Uzytkownik · Guru Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 399 Location: Bay Area, US

I've tried to build gcc with patch (thid one with memory leak while compilong X11):

mbar · Veteran Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 1990 Location: Poland

disable fortran.

Genewb · Apprentice Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 165

Vlad.Sharp · Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:

jcb118 · n00b Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 2

gcc 4.2 added OpenMP which allows you to add a handful of directives to existing source code to turn a standard program (fortran, c, c++?) into one that's executes in parallel on multiprocessor system. The best part is the directives read like comments to a non-OpenMP compiler, so your code can be compiled as usual or in parallel with the switch of a compile flag.
I'll be a happy guy when this gets closer to stable.

Uzytkownik · Guru Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 399 Location: Bay Area, US

boost-build cannot be build with gcc 4.2 (it builds ok with 4.1).

kernelOfTruth · Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:03 am Post subject:

cneil · Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:30 am Post subject:

neuron · Advocate Joined: 28 May 2002 Posts: 2371

Anyone tried openmp? I'm getting very mixed results, see https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-564312-highlight-.html

Also, anyone seen the gcc 4.3 ebuilds? Thought I saw em around on the forums but I can't find that thread anymore. Figured I'd check if it's been fixed upstream or not.

Tom_ · Guru Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 444 Location: France

Hi,
What about -ftree-vectorize? Is it stable enough ? Does GCC-4.2 really provides some improvements about this flag?

C++ visibility handling has been improved in GCC 4.2 but it is not useful to enable it in the make.conf, is it ? I've heard it is already enabled in the software that can really use it. Is it correct ?

Thank you in advance.

Tom.

kernelOfTruth · Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject:

anyone tried to install gcc-4.2.0 from kevquinn's overlay on hardened?

install (=make install) part always fails with:

Genewb · Apprentice Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 165

devsk · Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:43 am Post subject:

Tom_ · Guru Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 444 Location: France

irondog · Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject:

creidiki · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:41 am Post subject:

-fvisiblity-inlines-hidden you can add to your core CXXFLAGS with no issues, -fvisibility=hidden is best left alone.
_________________
'((eINIT) (soor overlay))

loki_val · Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject:

For people having problems with xorg-server taking *quite* a bit of time to compile, see this happy news from #gentoo-commits:

unK · l33t Joined: 06 Feb 2007 Posts: 769

unfortunately, emerge gcc fails with this message:

irondog · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject:

Patchset 1.2 sucks

I did not have any unexpected problems with the gcc-4.2.0 package and the previous patchset. I neither had xorg-x11 build problemes nor runtime errors, both 1.2 and 1.3 work.
With the current patchset some objects take ages to build

This process is taking 15% of all memory and is taking 100% of one core.:

loki_val · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject:

Irondog: bugs.gentoo.org, please. That sounds like a serious regression. What was the compile time with patchset 1.1?

Vlad.Sharp · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject:

Oooh could you post the source of this c++ file?