This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fwd: Building gcc-4.9 on OpenBSD
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Grant <ian dot a dot n dot grant at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Tobias Ulmer <tobiasu at tmux dot org>, "marc dot glisse at inria dot fr" <marc dot glisse at inria dot fr>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:04:55 -0700
- 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> <CAKFjmdzfunurWmFhA6RZOOPe59giCTt58NkXAW=Mqzc690qSEQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdR0kvRyaYywwPveO90WYQ-mKs7j1Lp9M3iMhDsxueY+Ow at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKFjmdz346GoRkkWdz+K6nEaMYCq7B4iZ4rLTgmE=z60-cq=Mw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKFjmdxt7GhW3PNfNNEUED-TU3+eQh9j_FU_pnH47LhgrQ1AzQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CCD865889A560649BA947E1B934A8D7DECAF1C74 at us01wembx1 dot internal dot synopsys dot com> <CAKFjmdzUOfRQu9xCRtxN1Dw9FOqh-HbKgr71C9m4X4kwuSbB0Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <001401cfd3b2$6ed27740$4c7765c0$ at arm dot com> <CAKFjmdyJ5Oi7w=DVvfzjwBgOT3wZ3X7NYaW1f9MWsf2_FseCLQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTVemHoxTQptRU-7RtNkVaGbO_2co4C3WFvBZVo4riqNQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQBKs1kH9t2CUQ+jyq+aoY85soA9mQjo1tbxBA0kYZzMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKFjmdzPjbOHThJ8-h=e7GdZEw7u2yYAvVOg+M2Tr0eD9xQ9Bw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ian Grant <email@example.com> wrote:
> None of this is useful to me. I'm trying to make a case for why people
> should have confidence in GNU software. You are NOT helping me in
> that, I assure you,
Again, try stripping out debugging information and look at the numbers
again. Or better yet use size printing out all of the sections rather
than the default output which combines some section and does not show
the debugging information,
>From a different email:
> > BTW, if "size" is reporting much smaller size than the executable
> > file itself and that motivates this concern, most of the difference
> > is likely to be debug info, which is bigger since gcc switched to
> > C++. Might want to try "strip".
> Great. As I said, the exercise we are here engaged in is to convince
> as many people as possible that GCC does NOT suffer from this problem
> on any OS, either OS, Windows, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, or Linux on
> any arch., including IBM System z.
Then don't use size with the default options but rather with the sysv
style output (-A) and look at all of the sections.
> We need to publish some simple steps that people can take to reassure
> themselves that the 64MB binaries that GCC 4.9 produces on Linux
> systems are normal and nothing to worry about,
Debugging information is increasing a lot. Writing GCC in C++ has
caused this issue because there is no removing of debugging
information yet in dwarf2/3/4, I think there is plans for it but I
can't remember if it made it into dwarf5 or not.
> Why is that so hard? Where are the GCC experts on this list. Where are
> the people that actually care about the reputation of the FSF?
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Wakely <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 20 September 2014 00:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 19 September 2014 16:21, Ian Grant wrote:
>>>> Thanks. But I asked what the non-vanilla sources were. I know what
>>>> the vanilla sources are, because I'm using them!
>>> The non-vanilla sources are everything else. That should be pretty obvious.
>> Or as it says in the text you quoted:
>> "This is in contrast to modified source from distribution for instance
>> that will usually add some patches"
>> Vanilla source == unmodified source
>> Non-vanilla source == modified source
>> Any modified source. If OpenBSD modifies the source, it's non-vanilla.
>> If Debian modifies the source, it's non-vanilla.
>> Personally I don't like the terms vanilla and non-vanilla but I think
>> their meanings are fairly clear.