This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fwd: Building gcc-4.9 on OpenBSD
- From: Ian Grant <ian dot a dot n dot grant at googlemail dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Ulmer <tobiasu at tmux dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:02:56 -0400
- Subject: Re: Fwd: Building gcc-4.9 on OpenBSD
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKFjmdzLbwLhYoNA3vg3LfWE_jbeq8npheNX6nGtOh--Tp-14g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKFjmdxKZBXXLXVqVR7pE6hmOfmF=8HdCV2gqJC6GxJ3822MMw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140918212226 dot GA18317 at tin dot tmux dot org> <CAKFjmdxzORjCEafbKQGYXRFh5FZMY+DkYkvDUqVNU8QcCvx+fw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdSvvbb+kmDmqJVJ7fMuEEQ5p7DuO9Bcm7vuFrmRQEpQ6Q at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 18 September 2014 23:46, Ian Grant wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
>>>> I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest:
>>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1
>>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/cpp
>>>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2M Sep 6 04:24 prev-gcc/xgcc
>>> Gcc 4.9 binaries on OpenBSD/amd64 are resonable:
>>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 11.6M Sep 9 03:02 cc1
>>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 15.4M Sep 9 03:02 gnat1
>>> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root bin 749K Sep 9 03:02 ecpp
>> I think we need to be able to explain this. It's an increase of over
>> 60%, I wouldn't expect that to be due to the relative ineffiiciency of
>> Intel instruction encoding over AMD. And it is not due to the
>> inclusion of libsylkrts (it's much easier to say "Intel library", how
>> many other libraries are there in GCC that were written by Intel?)
> liboffload might get added soon.
I don't know what that is. I'll look it up later maybe.
>> because that is not in the stage1 bootstrap.
> Are you looking at stripped binaries or unstripped?
I don't know. How should I find out, read the Makefile? :-) Doesn't
the stage-1 get stripped? I'm not a GCC developer, I'm a 'user.'
> Have you compared the binaries using size(1) instead of ls(1)?
Yes, they're a lot smaller. Are you suggesting the filesystem size is
just holes in the file? I would want to know what data is in there.
Think of this as a security audit.