Re: newbie trying to compile libc 2.9 latest

[Justin Mattock <justinmattock at gmail dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2009, Justin Mattock uttered the following:
>> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> so I figured I might as well make sure some how someway
>>>> the new version of make was being used for the compiling.
>>>> (using an older version caused some errors);
>>>
>>> MAKE=/your/make/here
>>
>> If I really have to change the Makefile I look for that.
>
> I meant that you can set that on the make and configure command lines.
>

sysvinit seems to be one to watchout for(ignores DESTDIR, install_root)
but in the Makefile you can set ROOT = *
(fried my system with that one   : ^ )

>>> If and only if you want a 64-bit libc (in which case you should be
>>> installing in .../lib64 instead of .../lib).
>>
>> I did not know that.
>
> <http://www.pathname.com/fhs/> may be interesting then.
>

I'll have a look into it.

>>> Um, that tutorial is dated September 2000. Decade-old tutorials are
>>> perhaps not the best thing to follow blindly... my advice is to look at
>>> what a gentoo full bootstrap does and figure out why it does each bit.
>>>
>> the sad thing is 2000 seems like it was just yesterday.
>> this is more like it
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter01/chapter01.html
>
> Yes, the LFS tutorials are pretty damn good.
>

It really is..
after libc compile and install I decided to give it a try; able to
boot the new kernel
(2.6.29-rc4)as well as operate and recompile libc and the kernel, and
most of the apps.

although I didn't compile gcc-core --with-languanges=c++(for some
reason 4.4.0 didn't let me, or I'm missing
something); and now I'm seeing it with some apps that call cpp during
the ./configure routine.
(something about what to do with /lib/cpp); I'll have to probably
figure out why gcc
wouldn't compile with c++ support in the first place(probably because
of gcc-core being
a prerelease or something in that direction);

>> as for the fun side(when I'm not in pain with my back) it is..
>> especially things like atomically setting every app(if said correctly)
>> to the processor.
>
> This has minimal effect on virtually every app. Even crypto-heavy apps
> aren't much affected by CPU optimizations on x86 (unlike on SPARC).
> Simply recompiling for 64-bit will have *far* more impact than any other
> CPU-specific optimizations on x86, because that gives you more registers,
> helping alleviate the platform's chronic register starvation.
>

Alright(this gets me very excited here); when looking at dmesg I see
processor using core2/atom configuration.
for both cores(not sure if this is good or not but it gets me going);

Now the positive side when running the new system is
(keep in mind shes(the system) still learning to walk)

I'm getting a different reaction with the gpe storm firing off.
I'll have to dig up the bug report for you when I get some time.
(long story short)
As a workaround I always used acpi_osi=Darwin to keep the gpe
storm detector from firing in the kernel(ever since it was introduced
in 2.6.24 or so).
Now with this new core2/atom configuration
It's the opposite using acpi_osi=Darwin triggers the storm,
and running the system normally shows no sighns of a trigger.
keep in mind it still early though.



>> just to make sure I go:
>> make
>> make check
>> make install
>>
>> not
>> make
>> make install
>> make check
>
> That's a good idea for virtually every app that has a testsuite, and an
> especially good idea for those (like glibc) that can completely shag
> your system if installed wrong. Some use 'make test' instead. A very few
> apps require installation before testing, often because they dlopen()
> things from fixed paths (ImageMagick and Subversion spring to mind), but
> this should be an ordering you try only if the first ordering fails.
>

when looking at the lfs tutorials theres some notes on make check taking
longer than normal with some test suites.

In any case I need to look into gcc-core not wanting to compile c++
language so I can pinpoint the issue with cpp complaint with apps
that use it(I'll send an example when I get some time);

regards;

-- 
Justin P. Mattock