On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your life
tops to get it redone with a recent stage 3, more likely 30 minutes. That
will
give you a working system albeit
On 8/2/2011, at 9:11pm, Nils Holland wrote:
On 12:41 Tue 08 Feb , Stroller wrote:
If my process wasn't clear from my last email: it looks like, following that
document, you have to do the whole thing with changed CHOST, *before* making
any changes to CFLAGS. It appears like only after
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
system to system.
I think it removes your ability to get a
On 10/2/2011, at 4:22pm, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied from
system to
Apparently, though unproven, at 17:18 on Thursday 10 February 2011, Stroller
did opine thusly:
On 8/2/2011, at 9:55pm, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
If you're a gambling man, play it by the numbers:
A re-install for a Gentoo user with a clue is a certain 1 hour of your
life tops to get it
On 10:22 Thu 10 Feb , Paul Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
I don't really know what the -fomit-frame-pointer part does - I imagine
someone suggested it, perhaps on here, years ago, and it has got copied
from system to
On 7/2/2011, at 11:03pm, Nils Holland wrote:
On 12:24 Mon 07 Feb , Stroller wrote:
The closest Gentoo stage was i486, and on such a slow old system it would be
nice to squeeze out any extra performance I can.
...
So what would probably work and what I'll try in the next days is
On 12:41 Tue 08 Feb , Stroller wrote:
If my process wasn't clear from my last email: it looks like, following that
document, you have to do the whole thing with changed CHOST, *before* making
any changes to CFLAGS. It appears like only after you've `emerge -e world`
with the new CHOST
Apparently, though unproven, at 15:33 on Monday 07 February 2011, Neil
Bothwick did opine thusly:
An `emerge -e world` may break things, but it's not usually that likely
to.
An emerge -e world is not likely to break things in itself, but the steps
that require it, such as changing
On 4/2/2011, at 9:31am, Neil Bothwick wrote:
...
Any time you consider a process that involves emerge -e world, you should
also consider a reinstall. A reinstall will certainly be quicker, the
only reason for an in place fix is if you cannot take the machine down
for that length of time.
I
On 4/2/2011, at 5:58am, Florian Philipp wrote:
...
The warning is actually there to stop users doing stupid things like blindly
trying to convert 32 bit systems to 64 bit. This is how that goes down:
1. Change CHOST
2. emerge -e world
3. ???
4. Fail!
Is the same true for more
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 11:13:27 +, Stroller wrote:
Any time you consider a process that involves emerge -e world, you
should also consider a reinstall. A reinstall will certainly be
quicker, the only reason for an in place fix is if you cannot take
the machine down for that length of
On 12:24 Mon 07 Feb , Stroller wrote:
The closest Gentoo stage was i486, and on such a slow old system it would be
nice to squeeze out any extra performance I can.
Well, what I'm currently in the process of trying to do (not because I
have an actual need for it, but rather out of
On 21:21 Fri 04 Feb , Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
1) So a package using the GNU build system determines or is passed
(via --host aka. CHOST) a target triplet specifying the system on
which the resulting compiled code is supposed to run. What does the
Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 04.02.2011 01:27, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Yes, if you are real smart it can be done. But real smart really does
mean
real smart i.e. not for the faint of heart and certainly not worth
being
officially supported.
Is the same true for more compatible arches like
Apparently, though unproven, at 11:29 on Friday 04 February 2011, Nils Holland
did opine thusly:
Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 04.02.2011 01:27, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Yes, if you are real smart it can be done. But real smart really does
mean
real smart i.e. not for the faint of heart and
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:58:27 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
Is the same true for more compatible arches like i486 - i686? I have a
system where I used the wrong stage-3 and now I'm stuck with an i486
CHOST on an Atom netbook where I could use every bit of performance.
It's possible, there's
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Interestingly, Ubuntu has always built for basic arches, and they seem to
get away with it.
IIRC they are now on i586 but for the longest time used i386. No
performance issues. You might want to investigate how they do
their builds and see if you can use their tricks.
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Interestingly, Ubuntu has always built for basic arches, and they seem to
get away with it.
IIRC they are now on i586 but for the longest time used i386. No
performance issues. You might want to
* Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
1) So a package using the GNU build system determines or is passed
(via --host aka. CHOST) a target triplet specifying the system on
which the resulting compiled code is supposed to run. What does the
package do with that information? Does it only use it
* Nils Holland n...@tisys.org wrote:
The question is, I guess, if the target host, when of the same arch (i.e.
i[3456]86) does actually have any influence on the code that gets
generated in terms of performance or ability to run on other sub-arches.
This is what I really couldn't find out so
Hi folks,
well, it's not that a certain thing I'm intending to do has pointed me
to it, but I've just noticed that something I've taken for granted for
years is something I probably fail to understand correctly. And as I'm
always eager to learn, I'm wondering if someone can point me in the
right
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:43 on Friday 04 February 2011, Nils Holland
did opine thusly:
I'm not in a position to give a fully definitive answer to 1) ...
2) /etc/make.conf contains a note that one should not change the CHOST
lightly (not that I'm planning to) and links to a nice
Am 04.02.2011 01:27, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:43 on Friday 04 February 2011, Nils
Holland
did opine thusly:
I'm not in a position to give a fully definitive answer to 1) ...
2) /etc/make.conf contains a note that one should not change the CHOST
lightly
24 matches
Mail list logo
