On 11-Feb-2003 Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
>> that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
>> rebuilding my ports with this new compiler because of stability and/or
>> speed improvements? Or is this point rele
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:03:28PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, leafy wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Anders
> > Yes I noticed it this morning too.
> > The funny thing is that. If you use a non-P4 optmized GCC to compile lcms with P4
>opt, then it passes the test. But with a P4 opted G
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:03:28PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, leafy wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Anders
> > Yes I noticed it this morning too.
> > The funny thing is that. If you use a non-P4 optmized GCC to compile lcms with P4
>opt, then it passes the test. But with a P4 opted G
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:03:28PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> > The funny thing is that. If you use a non-P4 optmized GCC to compile lcms with P4
>opt, then it passes the test. But with a P4 opted GCC, it borks. Looks like P4 opted
>GCC itself is bogus.
>
> That's odd. Does the FreeBSD build
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, leafy wrote:
> >
> > Anders
> Yes I noticed it this morning too.
> The funny thing is that. If you use a non-P4 optmized GCC to compile lcms with P4
>opt, then it passes the test. But with a P4 opted GCC, it borks. Looks like P4 opted
>GCC itself is bogus.
That's odd. Does
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:11:39PM +0100, Anders Andersson wrote:
> Testing curves join ...failed!
> *** Error code 1
>
> Stop in /usr/ports/graphics/lcms/work/lcms-1.09/testbed.
> *** Error code 1
>
> So, the lcms port still fails with CPUTYPE=p4 and there seems to be other
> issues still with C
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:14:58AM +0800, leafy wrote:
> lcms post-build tests now finishes correctly with pentium4 optimizations.
> And I have world with the p4 optimization with no ill-effact so far.
No, it still fails.
This is on a new world built with CPUTYPE?=p4 and then:
'portupgrade -f lc
Hmmm, fails to build for me:
FreeBSD asus 5.0-RELEASE-p1 FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE-p1 #3: Mon Feb 10
10:39:34 CET 2003 root@asus:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ASUS i386
gmake[3]: Entering directory `/usr/ports/lang/gcc32/work/build/gcc'
for d in libgcc; do \
if [ -d $d ]; then true; else /bin/sh
.././
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:48:31 -0500
Rahul Siddharthan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the OP -- any speed improvement from gcc 3.2.1 to 3.2.2 would
> probably be marginal. If some particular port really bothers you with
> its slow performance, try recompiling (though it's unlikely to help),
> othe
Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> There is a long thread on the GCC mailing list right now complaining
> about compile-time speed regressions from 2.95.x, with many complaints
> coming from Apple:
I don't think the original poster was talking about compile-time speed.
The running speed of applications is
At 9:43 PM -0500 2/10/03, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
There is a long thread on the GCC mailing list right now
complaining about compile-time speed regressions from 2.95.x,
with many complaints coming from Apple:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-02/msg00558.html
Whether these complaints lead to actual
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, Scott Dodson wrote:
> Excellent,
>
> Which optimization strings are you using in make.conf if you don't mind?
>
> --
> Scott
Plain cflags and cxxflags taken from /usr/share/examples/etc/make.conf
just modify the CPUTYPE as p4
Cheers,
Jiawei Ye
--
"Wit
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> Many people are upgrading from 4.7.x to -current for the first
> time these days, so I thought I would mention that for reference.
>
> GCC 3.2.2 was an incremental bugfix over GCC 3.2.1, and there are no
> earth-shattering performance improvements. I
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:06:19PM -0600, Juli Mallett wrote:
> I would assume the OP meant relative to the previous version of GCC in
> tree. Current hasn't been 2.95.x for some time.
Many people are upgrading from 4.7.x to -current for the first
time these days, so I thought I would mention tha
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> The import of gcc 3.2.2 brings a question to mind... Many people have
> mentioned problems with SSE / SSE2 instructions, optimizer problems etc
> that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
> rebuilding m
* De: Craig Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2003-02-10 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: GCC 3.2.2 import -- questions ]
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> > that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
> > rebuildi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:44:33PM -0500, Wesley Morgan wrote:
> that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
> rebuilding my ports with this new compiler because of stability and/or
> speed improvements? Or is this point release not worth the effort.
Speed improvement
The import of gcc 3.2.2 brings a question to mind... Many people have
mentioned problems with SSE / SSE2 instructions, optimizer problems etc
that are supposedly fixed with 3.2.2... My question is, should I consider
rebuilding my ports with this new compiler because of stability and/or
speed improv
18 matches
Mail list logo
