| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Snoozz
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 76
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: Unmasking gcc 4.3.0 :s :s :s |
 |
|
Hi there!
U just chrooted to my gentoo environnement and I checked the gcc version and didn't like what I saw (version gcc 4.1.1 :s). I want to change the version to gcc 4.3 before I continue and install the basic system...
Because I have a core2duo (conroe) I would like to emerge gcc 4.3 so I can use core2 as march (and therefor the sse3 instuction set). The problem is, I CAN'T unmask gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112 (triend about everything) :s.
I'm running stage3 (i686) 32-bit.
Can you guys yell me what's going on?
grtz |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
didymos
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What did you try to get it unmasked? Just add the line:
to /etc/portage/package.keywords and the line:
to /etc/portage/package.unmask.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snoozz
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope tried that,Doesn't work :'(.
I gave it up, I just used the prescott for cflags  .
Could you tell me if using gcc 4.1.1 will be much slower dan 4.3?
Best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
didymos
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see how that wouldn't work, but okay. As to the performance issue, I have no idea because I have no way to compare. I'm not particularly interested in using a compiler in alpha, and I don't have access to a Core 2 system. I doubt the difference would amount to much though. Just moving to Core 2 Duo is going to make a much greater difference, whatever the CFLAGS. Someone might have done some benchmarking. Actually, someone probably has done that, but I haven't looked.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nixnut
Bodhisattva
Joined: 09 Apr 2004
Posts: 10974
Location: the dutch mountains
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Installing Gentoo to Unsupported Software.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered
talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Janax
Apprentice
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 162
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You could look at this thread to see what you could discern from that. So far it looks like there isn't a lot of stability...
_________________
Americans for Fair Taxation because the current tax system is not only burdensome but corrupt as well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gerard27
Advocate
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 2377
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi there,
Gcc 4.3 is "hard masked".
Take a look at /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask.
You'll see that both 4.2 and 4.3 are in there.
Usually there is good reason for that.
G. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
didymos
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hi there,
Gcc 4.3 is "hard masked".
Take a look at /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask.
You'll see that both 4.2 and 4.3 are in there.
Usually there is good reason for that.
|
Umm, yeah, we knew that. That's why Snoozz asked how to unmask it.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jjeje007
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 142
Location: France, La Croix Valmer
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
To unmask gcc-4.3*
| Quote: | echo "sys-devel/gcc -*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
echo "=sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask |
Then :
| Quote: | | emerge -va =sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112 |
Change the _alpha20070112 to whatever version you want (but change it also in /etc/portage/package.unmask)
Have fun 
Jjeje007
Last edited by Jjeje007 on Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conan
Guru
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Use gcc-4.1
The performance difference (if any) will be a lot less then the lack of usefulness that comes from programs not yet compiling w/ a new compiler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
didymos
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hi,
To unmask gcc-4.3*
Quote:
echo "sys-devel/gcc -*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
echo "=sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
Then :
Quote:
emerge -va =sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112
Change the _alpha20070112 to whatever version you want (but change it also in /etc/portage/package.unmask)
Have fun
Jjeje007
|
Argh. Why do people do that? I hereby inaugurate an new acronym: RTFT. It's the same as RTFM, but with a T for thread/topic.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jjeje007
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 142
Location: France, La Croix Valmer
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hum,
| Quote: | | Argh. Why do people do that? I hereby inaugurate an new acronym: RTFT. It's the same as RTFM, but with a T for thread/topic. |
I don't understand what i did ??
This is the way I unmask gcc-4.3* (alpha)
And i read the topic (and the manuel also  )
Jjeje007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conan
Guru
Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| didymos wrote: | | Quote: |
Hi,
To unmask gcc-4.3*
Quote:
echo "sys-devel/gcc -*" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
echo "=sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
Then :
Quote:
emerge -va =sys-devel/gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112
Change the _alpha20070112 to whatever version you want (but change it also in /etc/portage/package.unmask)
Have fun
Jjeje007
|
Argh. Why do people do that? I hereby inaugurate an new acronym: RTFT. It's the same as RTFM, but with a T for thread/topic. |
Probably because your version was less then ideal, and incorrect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jjeje007
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 142
Location: France, La Croix Valmer
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Probably because your version was less then ideal, and incorrect. |
Incorrect ??
Sorry but this is what he (Snoozz) was asking for (gcc-4.3.0_alpha20070112)
And, :
| Quote: | gcc-config -l
[1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1
[2] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.98-alpha20070105
[3] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.98-alpha20070118 * |
I just want to help .....
Jjeje007
EDIT : By the way big thanks to pal_gene for his script (https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-526849-highlight-.html) :
| Quote: | #!/bin/bash
#
# create gcc-snapshot tarball script
#
# if first use, you have to command follow.
#
# for trunk
svn co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc-4.3
# for branches
# svn co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_2-branch gcc-4.2
#
# example for 4.3
GCC_VER=4
GCC_MVER=3
#### script
UPDATE=`date +%Y%m%d`
GCC_BASE="gcc-${GCC_VER}.${GCC_MVER}"
GCC_DETAIL="${GCC_BASE}-${UPDATE}"
svn up ${GCC_BASE}
svn export ${GCC_BASE} ${GCC_DETAIL}
echo -n "Obtained from SVN: trunk revision " > ${GCC_DETAIL}/LAST_UPDATED
LANG=C svn info ${GCC_BASE} | grep Revision | sed "s/[^0-9]//g" >> ${GCC_DETAIL}/LAST_UPDATED
tar -cjf ${GCC_DETAIL}.tar.bz2 ${GCC_DETAIL}
rm -rf ${GCC_DETAIL}
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archangel1
Veteran
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Posts: 1212
Location: Work
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jjeje007 wrote: | Hum,
| Quote: | | Argh. Why do people do that? I hereby inaugurate an new acronym: RTFT. It's the same as RTFM, but with a T for thread/topic. |
I don't understand what i did ??
This is the way I unmask gcc-4.3* (alpha)
And i read the topic (and the manuel also )
Jjeje007 |
Just a suggestion: If you can't unmask the package yourself, you're probably not ready to deal with the level of breakage it'll cause...
_________________
What are you, stupid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jjeje007
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 142
Location: France, La Croix Valmer
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Archangel1 wrote: | | Jjeje007 wrote: | Hum,
| Quote: | | Argh. Why do people do that? I hereby inaugurate an new acronym: RTFT. It's the same as RTFM, but with a T for thread/topic. |
I don't understand what i did ??
This is the way I unmask gcc-4.3* (alpha)
And i read the topic (and the manuel also )
Jjeje007 |
Just a suggestion: If you can't unmask the package yourself, you're probably not ready to deal with the level of breakage it'll cause... |
Ok, so to clarify :
DISCLAIMER : gcc-4.3* still in alpha release so use with care !!!! and as Archangel1 said, you should be able to unmask it by yourself
Jjeje007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
didymos
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 4798
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Probably because your version was less then ideal, and incorrect. |
Incorrect, well, yeah the keyword. Less than ideal, depends. Do you want a specific version and only a specific version, or do you want to ride the bleeding edge? Besides, he already gave up and went with gcc-4.1.1 before I even gave him my solution, which just illustrates the utility of the acronym.
_________________
Thomas S. Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
santaclaws
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 161
Location: Deeper Underground
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would never use an alpha version of gcc. 
_________________
Software is like sex. It is better when ist is free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gentree
Watchman
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 5350
Location: France, Old Europe
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conan wrote: | Use gcc-4.1
The performance difference (if any) will be a lot less then the lack of usefulness that comes from programs not yet compiling w/ a new compiler. |
from the few bechmarks I ran 4.1.1 is about the slowest gcc release in portage . Dont fool yourself into thinking bigger release number = faster code.
_________________
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Unsupported Software
