Results 1 ... 71 found in trilema for 'gcc5'
asciilifeform: trinque: speaking moar from concrete than theoretical pov -- gcc5 has documented 'optimizations' that remove bounds checks
asciilifeform really must dust off the old notes and try this with own hands; the presence of gcc5 in the build bothers asciilifeform not only from 'practical' but from thompsonistic pov
asciilifeform: !#s from:trinque gcc5
asciilifeform: spyked: i admit that i still dunget why it needs the gcc5 step
asciilifeform indeed expected that it's 100% gcc5ism
bvt: ran the tests for exceptions race, libgcc is fine in gcc4.9, locks are in place, so it seems that it is indeed another gcc5ism
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: imho the near-term thing to do is for bvt to get the gcc5sim, glibcism, out of his test setup. then can proceed to fix bugs that we actually have in the house, rather than liquishit that only afflicts glibctards.
mircea_popescu: around gcc5 times (early 2016) binutils were verschlimmbessert with support of new relocations <<< aaahahahahaha.
bvt: i don't think it gcc5-specific, the patch against this problem that i've seen was written for gcc 4.8
diana_coman: bvt, interesting; is that gcc5-specific though?
asciilifeform suspects this is a gcc5ism
asciilifeform: afaik there is exactly 0 win from gcc5+, and plenty of lose.
asciilifeform: maybe musl implements some functionality is a way unexpected << where didja get a gcc5istic gnat built on musl, bvt ??
asciilifeform: i recommend to leave gcc5 entirely alone (unless specifically digging for lulz)
asciilifeform: gcc5 breakage extends into the Ada world << noshit, if yer on a gcc5istic gnat, all bets are off, they fucked the back end
asciilifeform: ( if yer using a heathen gnat, and a gcc5+istic one, it will output the familiar gcc5isms; but we aint using one )
asciilifeform: not having used gcc5+ , i never saw this bug
asciilifeform: the gcc5+ gnomes, occupy selves with cranking out 'mandatory' kludges for intelism; removing backend support for vintage, marginally-sane archs (alpha, hitachi, etc); gluing-with-broken-glass various incompatibilities to prevent coad developed under 5+ from building under 4.x; inserting 'optimizations' that snake around naive cprogrammer attempts at bounds-constraint; and so forth.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2019-01-05#1884619 << from ave1 , i hope to see a 'port' of tmsr-gnat that can be hard-welded into cuntoo as primary gcc ( to remove the hack where it builds gcc5, then down to 4.9, and neither of'em being a gnat )
asciilifeform: gcc5ism.
asciilifeform: ( also to stop the gcc5ism gangrene, but this is a close second )
asciilifeform: upstack, https://archive.is/WMoLv (warning: entomologists only) << the how&why of uboot 'gcc5+ only' idjicy. tldr: gcc5 silently broke uboot on arm. so the latter was 'fixed' so as to... ONLY gcc5+. in the now-customary way.
asciilifeform: i.e. i was not able to build uboot on ANY of my boxen, even on the toilets where gcc5+ exists
asciilifeform: hmm, why does it emerge gcc5 ???
asciilifeform: spyked: this looks like classic gcc5ism
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2018-01-21#1773685 << if this is about the 'integer retardation' issue, the 1 thing it quite definitively had 0 to do with , is gcc5 : which did not exist in the era of 0.5.3 , nor did it exist in my stator or rotor setups
a111: Logged on 2018-01-21 21:38 trinque: my current wager is folks that had it were using a gcc5, which is defaulted to a later standard for C
trinque: my current wager is folks that had it were using a gcc5, which is defaulted to a later standard for C
asciilifeform: in other noose, trinque's pill worked, but the gcc5.x item was not needed
trinque: asciilifeform: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2015/02/05/gcc5-and-the-c11-abi/ << related.
asciilifeform: tbh the retardation of gcc5+ dun affect , in any known way, ada -- the rotters rotted c/cpp frontend strictly
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: principal headache is in re bringing up ~new~ boxes, without gcc5+ crapolade leaking in; rather than keeping old ones going
a111: Logged on 2017-11-25 01:55 asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-25#1742977 << having python > 2.7 is quite like having gcc5 around.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-25#1742977 << having python > 2.7 is quite like having gcc5 around.
asciilifeform: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-20#1741187 << the correct solution is to not install the gcc5 nonsense to begin with, then won't need cleaning. but this won't be happening during isp winter
asciilifeform: recall, original 'gcc5 is fatally touched' discovery happened on n00bz building rotors
asciilifeform: gcc5 was made by wreckers.
asciilifeform: !#s gcc5
asciilifeform: and i mean, all of it. no gcc5 on the box anywhere.
mike_c: that was gcc5
mod6: mike_c: I don't think it did. I set this one up like back in the spring. And I'm fairly sure it came with gcc5 and i vanquished all the bs by hand.
mod6: i think you can check in /etc/alternatives or whatever, to ensure there are no links or nothing to gcc5.
mod6: are you certain that gcc5 is vanquished from your sys?
mod6: this bug seems to pop up with gcc5 iirc.
mod6: yeah. it doesn't work with gcc5. this looks like the ncurses bug.
mike_c: but this did tons more. I'm going to go ahead and say gcc5 is no good for this (at least on out-of-the-box ubuntu)
mod6: make sure to use gcc4, i've seen problems myself with gcc5
phf: mike_c: i had it working with pretty much everything, gcc4, gcc5, clang/llvm. when i build manually i just use dependencies that whatever local package gives me, at which point make Just Works
asciilifeform: though i will point out that gnat+gcc5/6 might not in fact suffer from same horrors as cpp on same.
asciilifeform: incidentally for all i know gcc5ism has not even touched gnat/ada
a111: Logged on 2017-06-06 00:42 ben_vulpes: oh christ xorg needs gcc5 now?
asciilifeform: gcc5ification marches on.
asciilifeform: now you might try same recipe, cum a gcc5 ban
asciilifeform: ben_vulpes: it doesn't cure gcc5ism, no
ben_vulpes: oh christ xorg needs gcc5 now?
mircea_popescu: i thought this is what we're all trying. only to discover that whatever, xorg now no longer builds without gcc5 etc.
mod6: in fact, the gcc5 thing is driving me nuts too; i've got a new notebook to replace the one with the bad 'o' key (you might remember from c3) and getting everything setup is like hair-pulling.
asciilifeform: this is what the gcc5 folks spend their time doing.
asciilifeform: on top of this, gcc5 happily removes , e.g., memset
a111: Logged on 2016-09-13 17:49 asciilifeform: even gcc5 no longer does.
asciilifeform: !#s gcc5
asciilifeform: because cpp11 is how folx typically end up reluctantly grunting in the stake of gcc5
asciilifeform: even gcc5 no longer does.
asciilifeform: see also the gcc5 threads
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: so long as it isn't gcc5, it builds.
asciilifeform: removing boost would be a worthy thing. BUT NOT if it multiplies the line count 2x, OR if it entails forcing gcc5 build
asciilifeform: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=16-01-2016#1373346 << if you have a box with gcc5, just format the hdd and start over, sanely