GCC 4.3.0 testing!

PaulBredbury · Watchman Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7310

I've seen fast-math enabled in the Makefile of some Quake 1 & 2 engines. Just in case anyone's wondering whether it's ever safe to use - the answer is that it can be, as long as the app's writer says so

vipernicus · Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:00 am Post subject:

Torangan · Apprentice Joined: 21 Mar 2003 Posts: 178

cruzki · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 13 Dec 2005 Posts: 137

I saw yesterday that the new kernel have an option only for gcc-4.2, is this option enough important to use 4.2 for compile this kernel?¿?

Enverex · Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:13 am Post subject:

I remember things like XMame and Widelands use things like -funroll-all-loops -ffast-math, etc (force them on for that ebuild). I guess things like XMame need all the code speed they can get.

no4b · Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:34 am Post subject:

Although mplayer's developers are tough with optimalization flags, it uses -ffast-math. This flag is bad *only* in some cases, not in general. So no, nobody's soul is dying when you use it.
_________________
GTK2/GNOME - The weakest link!

Zubzub · Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject:

Enverex · Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject:

It's not defined twice, it's just split up (notice the variable is specified on the second line making it an append rather than replacing the old one).

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:58 am Post subject:

DualCpuUser · n00b Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 71

Ok, I have to chime in here:

1) Starting to use gcc-4.3.0-svn as of yesterday/todays, sources. Compiled fine.
2) patch set for that alpha does not carry forward, but not relevant CPU's.
3) I was using a modified 4.1.1 + the generic(32/64) patches and SVN of Binutils as I wanted to make sure I got the SSSE3 updates to GAS.
4) I WANT/NEED/Demand

4.3 to work, because of -MARCH=CORE2 support!!! Overall, not need to many switches to turn on, as long as the ins-scheduler optimizes for my cpu.
5) Mentioned earlier can't compile glibc, I think I tried that a few days ago with the alpha version that version need removal and grab 1201 core2 wasn't in that.
6) 4.1.1+patches did pass all the compiler tests, but I was having ICE when some switches were enabled.
7) If you are going to play with compiler flags, MOVE flag-o-matic to your overlay directory, yes it gets used there. ADD the flags you NOT want stripped. Flags get stripped even if use flags are used.

QT Last time I compiled it, 4.1.1+HJ patches was 6 mins 50 seconds. f0rk.

God, an hour+20, or 2 hrs.. I have some hardware to sell. AMD X2 and Opteron X2.
9) Python compiled just fine atm with 4.3.0.
10) never used LDFlags, going to used vipers suggestion on pg 2 from nesl247.
11) for now, most of the flags are what I used while on my AMD64 box.
12) Oh, FEATURES=${FEATURES} test" ADD TEST RUNS, YES, ITS A PAIN And watch out for DB.... its test run for hours, kill that build and start over.
CAVEAT: I'm seeing tests fail, more to there age, than a real failure. Coreutils test failed as with hash=both, it sees both definitions as errors.
13) BEFORE ANYTHING, IF YOU DON'T USE 'buildpkg' in your FEATURES FLAG, add it and rebuild your major system components for going back to gcc-4.1.1 and the binaries compiled with it. It will save you a lot of grief if gcc-4.3.X is used.

-Ron
[I reserve the right to edit this as I see fit.

][/code]
_________________
-Ron

Gentree · Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:23 am Post subject:

anyone tested gfortran off 4.3 ?

BTW s.o. remind me how to unmask a -* pkg . Thx.

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

masterdriverz · Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:24 am Post subject:

Gentree · Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:27 am Post subject:

damn, you're too quick, I was hoping to edit that out before anyone read it :evil:

thanks a lot :wink:

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

masterdriverz · Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 12:46 am Post subject:

Gentree · Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:57 am Post subject:

(email notifications++) ++

just ran some of the benchmarks from http://www.polyhedron.com/pb05/linux/f90bench_p4.html an my athlon-xp system using gfortran from 4.3

encouraging , some healthy reductions of 25-30% and one regression where it was slower.

I dont see gfortran being so far behind ifc on any of the test as seen that link. Maybe due to the fact that their test ran on suse 9.3 , probably gcc-4.0.2 where gfortran was rather new and the hardware was an intel dual core for which the intel compiler may produce more fine tuned code.

if anyone's interested here's a summary.

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:16 pm Post subject:

hmm, no-one testing 4.3 ?

I had a hard job even finding this thread again.

just compiled a few pkgs that were needed by revdep and it seems to have gone smoothly.

Any good features to be gained from 4.3 for us ludites still using only one core CPUs?

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject:

zxy · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject:

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject:

thanks, very informative. Looks like gfortran is moving fast as well.

any idea what the libc++ error above is about? I got a similar bounce on kdelib.

It looks like gcc-config is not doing enough. It's still refering to 4.1.1 and my current glibc++-v3 is 3.3.6

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

drwook · Veteran Joined: 30 Mar 2005 Posts: 1324 Location: London

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject:

thanks but no, I already tried that (not that revdep not finding anything means that much ...).

It looks similar to the way gcc-config fails to swap gfortran. 1.3.14 only half works but 2.0.0_rc is masked. :roll:

_________________
Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.
Gentoo because I'm a masochist
AthlonXP-M on A7N8X. Portage ~x86

Gentree · Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject:

zxy · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:37 am Post subject:

I just saw that gcc 4.3.0_alpha20061216 came into portage.

Anybody tried it yet.

@Gentree: Maybe it solves your problem from above.
_________________
Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.
Lao Tzu

nbvcxz · Guru Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 379 Location: Kraków / PL

Gentree · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:57 pm Post subject: