Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
On 08-11-2014 15:37, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
On 08-11-2014 13:46, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
On 08-11-2014 13:36, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
David Brodie wrote:
On 08/11/14 12:07, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
... two systems:
LFS7.1 host (SVN-20120311) (error occurs)
LFS7.6 (no error with enable-optimize
The following relates specifically to Firefox 32.0.1 (and Seamonkey
2.29), but may well still apply to 33.0.3.
There is apparently a gcc compiler issue causing the Python script,
'packager.py' to fail while it is precompiling a list of Javascript
scripts, using Mozilla's (internal) js shell, 'xpcshell' - essentially,
it (i.e. xpcshell) falls over about half way through the list, as your
log demonstrates.
Now as I understand it, for gcc 4.9.x, certain 'undefined' behaviour has
been changed, in particular, the handling (signed) integer overflow, so
that any program that was tacitly relying on a certain behaviour will
have problems, which could very well be what is happening here (i.e.
some counter is overflowing).
See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1047803 for some
discussion.
(In other words, it is a gcc problem, not a Python problem)
Using ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2" (rather than
--disable-optimize), appears to cure the problem for both packages.
That's interesting. On my 686 system I still have gcc-4.7.0. I'll try
to build it with the full --enable-optimize and see what happens since
the bug report indicates the problem started with gcc-4.8.
If that doesn't work, I'll try --enable-optimize="-O2"
It is impressive the difference in performance (start time, downloading
page time, ...).
If I understand correctly, you are testing FF. I will try to build SM
with optimization, now.
Success with SM latest. Much faster, with optimizations.
Thanks again, David!!!
Bruce, would you prefer doing the modifications yourself, or fix after I
edit the SM and FF pages?
Bruce, if you prefer doing the changes, I don't mind.
I was out and just got back. With gcc-4.7.0 SM builds fine with
optimization. I guess it's just gcc-4.8 that causes the problem.
I think you've done more testing than I have so please go ahead.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
