Re: Oh no, what a really heavy bummer

[Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk>]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 04:43:44PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:22:44PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-23 at 11:17, Pigeon wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > [snip]
> > > 
> > > Having put appropriate deb-src lines in sources.list, pointing to CD
> > > images or websites as appropriate, have I got this sequence right?
> > > 
> > > apt-get source --download-only whatever   # get source package
> > > dpkg-source -x whatever.dsc               # unpack it
> > > # fiddle with Makefiles etc.
> > > dpkg-buildpackage -b -ai686 whatever.dsc  # create binary .deb
> > > dpkg -i whatever.deb                      # install it
> > 
> > Here's how I do it:
> > # apt-get source gqview=1.0.2-1
> > # export CC=gcc-3.2 -Wall -O2 -mcpu=pentiumpro

Shouldn't that be -march=pentimpro, unless you want to generate
386-compatible code?

> That's kinda nasty.  I think CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS are better places to
> put this sort of thing.

That's what I generally do, but some non-Debian stuff sometimes has
nasty makefiles that don't take account of your CFLAGS, or even your
CC, which leads to even uglier hacks like

# cd /usr/bin
# mv gcc-2.95 realgcc-2.95
# cat > gcc-2.95
exec /usr/bin/realgcc-2.95 -Wall -O2 -march=i686 ${*}
^D
# chmod a+x gcc-2.95

or something along those lines. Yuk! (Raise both wings high above
back, whack offending code with one of them)

gcc-2.95 v. 3.2: I've got 2.95 at the moment because that's what I've
been used to. Before I download big source packages, am I right in
thinking that 3.2 itself runs slower, but the code it produces runs
faster? And the difference is quite noticeable?

Pigeon


Pigeon