[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Service relaunch: anongit.gentoo.org; anonymous git checkouts via git:// and http://
FYI, I have now turned off the old hostnames. git://overlays.gentoo.org/ git://*.overlays.gentoo.org/ git://anon.gentoo.org/ git+ssh://overlays.gentoo.org/ git+ssh://*.overlays.gentoo.org/ On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 08:42:54AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Full anonymous Git service has returned. > > Please note the new base URLs that it is available at, and visit GitWeb > if you need to copy & paste the URL for a given repository. > > git://anongit.gentoo.org/ > http://anongit.gentoo.org/git/ (note the extra /git in the URL). > > Please note that the following prior anonymous URLs will be discontinued not > later > than 2015/04/01 (one is broken already). > > git://git.gentoo.org/ > git://git.overlays.gentoo.org/ > git://overlays.gentoo.org/ > - works now, discontinued on 2015/04/01. > > git://anon.gentoo.org/ > - was not fixed since the outage last year, will not be returning. > anoncvs/anon and anongit are now on different servers. > > git://.gentoo.org/ > - if you are using this, you're just waiting for breakage. > > -- > Robin Hugh Johnson > Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead > E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org > GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Should this be considered a gcc bug?
Hello *,
There was a bug #526194 - dev-lisp/sbcl does not respect CFLAGS. It was
"fixed" by Mark Wright on Jan 31 - Feb 1. However,
after this fix the upstream CFLAGS were appended to the user-supplyed
${CFLAGS}. And the upstream CFLAGS contain -O3. So, is a user has, e.g.,
-O2 in his/her ${CFLAGS}, it was silently replaced by -O3. For some time,
nobody noticed this: gcc-4.8 happily compiled the C stuff in sbcl with
-O3.
However, after the upgrade to gcc-4.9 problems began (bug #544070). On
amd64, gcc is still happy co compile sbcl with -O3. However, on x86 this
leads to a crash of a freshly compiled sbcl runtime. Namely, the
combinations
-O2 -march=
-O3
behave correctly, and produce a working sbcl; but
-O3 -march=
lead to the crush. I have changed the above "fix" in sbcl-1.2.10 in such a
way that now it appends only -g -Wall -Wsign-compare to ${CFLAGS}, but
not -O3. This resolves the bug #544070, unless a user has -O3
-march= in his/her ${CFLAGS}.
Shouldn't gcc-4.9 on x86 produce with -O3 something functionally
equivalent to the -O2 case, only more optimized? Should this be considered
a gcc-4.9 bug?
Andrey
Re: [gentoo-dev] Should this be considered a gcc bug?
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:57:16 +0600 (NOVT) gro...@gentoo.org wrote:
> Hello *,
>
> There was a bug #526194 - dev-lisp/sbcl does not respect CFLAGS. It was
> "fixed" by Mark Wright on Jan 31 - Feb 1. However,
> after this fix the upstream CFLAGS were appended to the user-supplyed
> ${CFLAGS}. And the upstream CFLAGS contain -O3. So, is a user has, e.g.,
> -O2 in his/her ${CFLAGS}, it was silently replaced by -O3. For some time,
> nobody noticed this: gcc-4.8 happily compiled the C stuff in sbcl with
> -O3.
>
> However, after the upgrade to gcc-4.9 problems began (bug #544070). On
> amd64, gcc is still happy co compile sbcl with -O3. However, on x86 this
> leads to a crash of a freshly compiled sbcl runtime. Namely, the
> combinations
>
> -O2 -march=
> -O3
>
> behave correctly, and produce a working sbcl; but
>
> -O3 -march=
>
> lead to the crush. I have changed the above "fix" in sbcl-1.2.10 in such a
> way that now it appends only -g -Wall -Wsign-compare to ${CFLAGS}, but
> not -O3. This resolves the bug #544070, unless a user has -O3
> -march= in his/her ${CFLAGS}.
>
> Shouldn't gcc-4.9 on x86 produce with -O3 something functionally
> equivalent to the -O2 case, only more optimized? Should this be considered
> a gcc-4.9 bug?
Please look at gcc-4.9 manual for the list of -O3 expansion and
find what flag exactly causes this issue. There may be two reasons:
gcc bug and sbcl bug. While you have correctly pointed out that
this may be a problem in gcc, another possibility is that extra
optimization triggers some problem in the code itself, which causes
a segfault.
Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko
pgpp5lgZkfT6F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Should this be considered a gcc bug?
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 09:57:16 +0600 (NOVT)
gro...@gentoo.org wrote:
> However, after this fix the upstream CFLAGS were appended to the
> user-supplyed ${CFLAGS}. And the upstream CFLAGS contain -O3.
There is your problem. We filter out those compiler flags that affect
the output, so -O3 should go (and e.g. -Wall could stay).
jer
