Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
GCC 4.3.0 testing! (part 2)
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chrisstankevitz
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Posts: 472
Location: Santa Barbara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schwinni wrote:

The "normal" way is:
1. unmask gcc-4.3.2, then:
2. emerge --sync
3. emerge -uDN @world
4. revdep-rebuild
5. gcc-config <nr-of-gcc-4.3.2-in-the-list>
6. emerge -e @system
7. emerge -e @world
8. emerge --unmerge <youroldgccversion>


Thanks for your help. It looks like there's at least one more package that needs to be unmasked:
Code:
- sys-libs/glibc-2.8_p20080602 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)
- sys-libs/glibc-2.7-r2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)


I'm going to try glibc-2.7-r2 -- but I would feel more comfortable if I were following some real documentation. I guess that's the price I pay for using unstable gcc.

Thanks,

Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chrisstankevitz
Guru
Guru


Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Posts: 472
Location: Santa Barbara, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your help, I got everything running on gcc 4.3 except virtualbox-ose-2.0.4. Here are the relevant sections from package.keywords:
Code:
# 2008-11-01 - GCC 4.3
~sys-devel/gcc-4.3.2 ~amd64
~sys-libs/glibc-2.7 ~amd64

# 2008-11-01 - GCC 4.3 compatibility
~x11-libs/qt-4.3.5 ~amd64
~sys-apps/pciutils-3.0.2 ~amd64
~dev-util/boost-build-1.35.0 ~amd64
~dev-libs/elfutils-0.131 ~amd64


Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
piwacet
Guru
Guru


Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 486

PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've noticed that the gcc-4.3 stabilization bug depends on the glibc-2.8 tracker bug, implying the devs would like to have glibc-2.8 stable for gcc-4.3. Does anyone know why they favor glibc-2.8 over the latest revision of glibc-2.7? I ask because I'm likely going to rebuild soon with gcc-4.3, and I'm trying to decide which glibc version to use.

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aliquid
n00b
n00b


Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

piwacet wrote:
I've noticed that the gcc-4.3 stabilization bug depends on the glibc-2.8 tracker bug, implying the devs would like to have glibc-2.8 stable for gcc-4.3. Does anyone know why they favor glibc-2.8 over the latest revision of glibc-2.7? I ask because I'm likely going to rebuild soon with gcc-4.3, and I'm trying to decide which glibc version to use.

Thanks!


IIRC there're some multilib issues when building gcc-4.3 with glibc 2.7. It's not like gcc 4.3 doesn't support glibc 2.7, those issues are gentoo specific
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.yankee
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 194
Location: Polska

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, people.

I can see it's been quite a while since anyone posted here - does this bode well? :roll:

Any good reasons for not rebuilding the system with 4.3.2-r3? And how about 4.3.3..?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xake
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

.yankee wrote:
Hi, people.

I can see it's been quite a while since anyone posted here - does this bode well? :roll:

Any good reasons for not rebuilding the system with 4.3.2-r3? And how about 4.3.3..?


With the toolchain herd working towards making gcc-4.3 go stable I would say no good reasons, but if you are a stable user you maybe should wait until then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.yankee
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 194
Location: Polska

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for answering, Xake. I've decided to go for 4.3.2 and am rebuilding @world just now :)
Didn't want to try 4.3.3 as I've read someone here saying not nice things about it ;) (Unfortunately I can't find that post now.) Does anyone else have some experience in that matter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xake
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

.yankee wrote:
Thanks for answering, Xake. I've decided to go for 4.3.2 and am rebuilding @world just now :)
Didn't want to try 4.3.3 as I've read someone here saying not nice things about it ;) (Unfortunately I can't find that post now.) Does anyone else have some experience in that matter?


With version 4.3.3 vapier decided to enable -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and -Wformat-security by default (like many other distros already have done) leading to breakage with packages not ready for those security-related flags yet.
_________________
If I edit a post without commenting it mostly is spelling-errors.
And if I sounds rude I am sorry, that is just my personality speaking and has most of the time nothing to do with you personally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Watchman


Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6108
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xake wrote:
.yankee wrote:
Thanks for answering, Xake. I've decided to go for 4.3.2 and am rebuilding @world just now :)
Didn't want to try 4.3.3 as I've read someone here saying not nice things about it ;) (Unfortunately I can't find that post now.) Does anyone else have some experience in that matter?


With version 4.3.3 vapier decided to enable -DFORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and -Wformat-security by default (like many other distros already have done) leading to breakage with packages not ready for those security-related flags yet.


IMO that's a really BAD idea,

since there are still several packages that break with fortify and also with -fPIE / PIE enabled

only providing that flavour of compiler isn't that good, instead specs like in the ("experimental") hardened toolchain should be provided so that the users have more choice:

Quote:
[16] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.3
[17] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.3-nofortify *
[18] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.3-nopie
[19] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.3-nossp_all
[20] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.3-vanilla

_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xake
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kernelOfTruth wrote:
IMO that's a really BAD idea,

since there are still several packages that break with fortify and also with -fPIE / PIE enabled

only providing that flavour of compiler isn't that good, instead specs like in the ("experimental") hardened toolchain should be provided so that the users have more choice:


On the other hand: it is not THAT much that breaks with FORTIFY_SOURCE, and most of the stuff that does do it at compiletime (where mosts seems to be misuse of -Werror).
As I see it FORTIFY_SOURCE does not give much overhead (if any, cannot remember the benchmarks), and it will force *a lot* of maintainers to do something about their packages.
_________________
If I edit a post without commenting it mostly is spelling-errors.
And if I sounds rude I am sorry, that is just my personality speaking and has most of the time nothing to do with you personally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zorry
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Umeå The north part of scandinavia

PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xake wrote:
kernelOfTruth wrote:
IMO that's a really BAD idea,

since there are still several packages that break with fortify and also with -fPIE / PIE enabled

only providing that flavour of compiler isn't that good, instead specs like in the ("experimental") hardened toolchain should be provided so that the users have more choice:


On the other hand: it is not THAT much that breaks with FORTIFY_SOURCE, and most of the stuff that does do it at compiletime (where mosts seems to be misuse of -Werror).
As I see it FORTIFY_SOURCE does not give much overhead (if any, cannot remember the benchmarks), and it will force *a lot* of maintainers to do something about their packages.

Tracker for the Fortify bugs >=sys-devel/gcc-4.3.3 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and -Wformat-security porting
_________________
gcc version 6.1.0 (Gentoo Hardened 6.1.0 p1.1)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xake
Guru
Guru


Joined: 11 Feb 2004
Posts: 588
Location: Göteborg, the rainy part of scandinavia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zorry wrote:
Tracker for the Fortify bugs >=sys-devel/gcc-4.3.3 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 and -Wformat-security porting


If you look at those bugs there is about one fifth being buffert overflows, and the rest is about fifty fifty -Werror and O_CREAT (both being becouse of bad coding either in build-system or program sources). Nearly all have patches or other fixes/workarounds. If they were "opt-in" features, then maintainers (as with hardened currently) probably would make them low priority and neraly never pay any attention to them and integrate them into the portage tree, but as vapier made FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 obligatory, they have to fix it sooner or later.
_________________
If I edit a post without commenting it mostly is spelling-errors.
And if I sounds rude I am sorry, that is just my personality speaking and has most of the time nothing to do with you personally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum