On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:13:53PM +0100, Frank Steinmetzger wrote
> To quickly switch between building locally and via distcc (or chroot
> in this case), I set up the usual march, CFLAGS, features, mirrors
> and such in make.conf and then below that source my .conf file for
> distcc or chroot whi
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 09:56:12PM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> My situation...
>
> * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it
> * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520
> * It's 32-bit only; YES!
> * Compiling just the Seamonkey binary (ignoring its dependanci
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:20:57AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:01:14PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
>
> > Let me know if you have any luck with pump mode, I didn't. IIRC it sort of
> > worked but most compiles fell back to compiling locally so it's was
> > actually
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:01:14PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> Let me know if you have any luck with pump mode, I didn't. IIRC it sort of
> worked but most compiles fell back to compiling locally so it's was actually
> slower.
It appears to be working. It took a couple of tries to get
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 03:01:14PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
>
> Let me know if you have any luck with pump mode, I didn't. IIRC it
> sort of worked but most compiles fell back to compiling locally so
> it's was actually slower. The rest of this post (or parts) may not
> apply if you do get
On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 3:17:55 AM Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:18:46PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
>
> > You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit
> > objects on the 64-bit machine.
>
> How could i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc build 64-bit stuff in the fi
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:18:46PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
>
>> You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit
>> objects on the 64-bit machine.
>
> How could i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc build 64-bit stuff in the first plac
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:18:46PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
> You will probably need to add -m32 to CFLAGS to avoid building 64-bit
> objects on the 64-bit machine.
How could i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc build 64-bit stuff in the first place?
I followed the instructions, and ran the following on the
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 06:41:31PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> Your CPU is an example of what I'm saying, not just because it
> doesn't have 64 bit extensions but because it doesn't have MMX
> (at least according to the specs) and according to the GCC manual
> -march=atom means: "Intel Atom
On Monday, March 23, 2015 6:48:39 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 23, 2015 6:18:46 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes
wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando
On Monday 23 March 2015 21:51:04 Walter Dnes wrote:
> I have one of the earliest Atom chips. Some people have a hard time
> believing this, but it's a 32-bit-only chip; a couple of lines from
> /proc/cpuinfo
>
> model name : Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 @ 1.33GHz
> address sizes : 32 bit
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Monday, March 23, 2015 6:18:46 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
>> >
>> >> I guess gcc devs are careful when using t
On Monday, March 23, 2015 6:18:46 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> >
> >> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel
> >> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
>
>> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel
>> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the
>> models I mentioned) but the chance o
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 09:25:53PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> I guess gcc devs are careful when using the model numbers (Intel
> lists 3 for Atoms, gcc uses only two so that may account for the
> models I mentioned) but the chance of error is there. The -mno-xxx
> flags would safeguard aga
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:03:01 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes
wrote:
> >> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovb
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:03:01 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
> wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes
wrote:
> >> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovb
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>>> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
wrote:
> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-aes -mno-pclmul -
> mno-popcnt -mno-abm -mno-lwp -mno-fma -mno
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 08:46:10AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote
> I should warn you against including all of those -mno-xxx flags. This
> has been known to break the build process for packages like chromium,
> which always wants to build with SSE4 support and toggles it off at
> runtime. Passing -mno
On Saturday, March 21, 2015 8:46:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-aes -mno-pclmul -
mno-popcnt -mno-abm -mno-lwp -mno-fma -mno-fma4 -mno-xop -mno-bmi -mno-bmi2 -
mno-tbm -mno-avx -mno-avx2 -mn
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=atom -mno-cx16 -msahf -mmovbe -mno-aes -mno-pclmul
> -mno-popcnt -mno-abm -mno-lwp -mno-fma -mno-fma4 -mno-xop -mno-bmi -mno-bmi2
> -mno-tbm -mno-avx -mno-avx2 -mno-sse4.2 -mno-sse4.1 -mno-lzcnt -mno-rtm
> -mno-hle -mno-r
On Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:20:26 AM Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote:
> > > My situation...
> > >
> > > * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it
> >
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote:
> > My situation...
> >
> > * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it
> > * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520
> > * It's 32-bi
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote:
> My situation...
>
> * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it
> * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520
> * It's 32-bit only; YES!
> * Compiling just the Seamonkey binary (ignoring its dependancies
My situation...
* I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it
* The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520
* It's 32-bit only; YES!
* Compiling just the Seamonkey binary (ignoring its dependancies) took
14 hours
I obviously want to offload compiling to another m
26 matches
Mail list logo
