Re: Fwd: Building gcc-4.9 on OpenBSD

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ian Grant <ian.a.n.grant@googlemail.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.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

>
> 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?
>
> Ian
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> 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.