On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 11:39:42PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
> On 10/26/2018 08:48 PM, Brendan L via blfs-dev wrote:
> > Here is the bug where elfhack was implemented. In the comments there
> > is a link to a blog with details about it.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606145
> >
> > On 10/26/2018 08:48 PM, Brendan L via blfs-dev wrote:
> > Here is the bug where elfhack was implemented. In the comments there
> > is a link to a blog with details about it.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=606145
>
> Most of this bug is 8 years old, but it's probably still relevant.
>
> I've been thinking about this a bit more. Doug's problem is during the
> install where something in the installer relating to the elfhack code is
> throwing an uncaught exception. Perhaps we should add a comment into the
> mozconfig that on some systems this happens and that it can be fixed with
> uncommenting
>
> #ac_add_options --disable-elf-hack
>
> The hack itself only appears to give a very minor speedup to the initial
> start process and it would appear that the faster the machine, the less
> important the hack becomes.
>
> We should also keep an eye on this issue as the 63.0.x releases and beyond
> are released. I suspect we will see several before our next stable release
> is scheduled next March.
>
> -- Bruce
I'm still up (waiting for a build on my Ryzen3 to finish, currently
at 105 minutes). So a question about mentioning this: it is a
configure option. The idea, at least when I needed it a couple of
years ago when playing with gold, was that it would bail fairly
early on in the build. But now, it seems to get reported almost at
the end of the build. From a gcc build on this box, which "only"
took 96m56.89s :
96:37.84 ===
96:37.84 === If you get failures below, please file a bug describing the error
96:37.85 === and your environment (compiler and linker versions), and
96:37.85 === provide the pre-elfhacked library as an attachment.
96:37.85 === Use --disable-elf-hack until this is fixed.
96:37.85 ===
which is quite a late stage to report this, and also not-necessarily
related to Douglas's problem.
[O/T] OOOh! at some point after 106 minutes I've now got all 4 cores
in use, and at 111 minutes ld.gold is linking libxul.so. Joy! I'll
soon be able to throw one of the alternative suggestions I've found
at a new build.
Last reported time 112m29.59.
Going to bed, as soon as I get the next attempt started.
ĸen
--
Is it about a bicycle ?
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
