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 release
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),
otherwise
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 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
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
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 the
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 skill
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 GCC, it
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 GCC, it
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
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 improvements?
* 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
rebuilding my ports with this new
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 my
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 that
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 have
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
--
Without
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
