From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/12420 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "A. Wilcox" Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: will this idea work? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 16:22:02 -0600 Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?Ad=c3=a9lie_Linux?= Message-ID: <75db21ec-2269-d28b-10fb-2c500d210774@adelielinux.org> References: <20180125112249.GE4418@port70.net> <20180125203045.GD1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180126020733.GE1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xFWoWqt3lwe6qKgcq9mXM0BoxAmNI8liC" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1517091623 24948 195.159.176.226 (27 Jan 2018 22:20:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:20:23 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-12436-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jan 27 23:20:19 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1efYpW-0005jk-7k for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jan 2018 23:20:10 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 8035 invoked by uid 550); 27 Jan 2018 22:22:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 8017 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2018 22:22:12 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20180126020733.GE1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:12420 Archived-At: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xFWoWqt3lwe6qKgcq9mXM0BoxAmNI8liC Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="4gnu99cTaI0woKXm08oH14SU88kqP7Mvm"; protected-headers="v1" From: "A. Wilcox" To: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <75db21ec-2269-d28b-10fb-2c500d210774@adelielinux.org> Subject: Re: [musl] will this idea work? References: <20180125112249.GE4418@port70.net> <20180125203045.GD1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20180126020733.GE1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> In-Reply-To: <20180126020733.GE1627@brightrain.aerifal.cx> --4gnu99cTaI0woKXm08oH14SU88kqP7Mvm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/25/18 20:07, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 01:31:38PM -0800, Po-yi Wang wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, Rich Felker wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:09:27PM -0800, Po-yi Wang wrote: >>>> i scanned through the musl mailing list archive, it seemed that >>>> the minimum supported binutils version has been discussed before, >>>> around October 15, 2015. what is the current recommended >>>> gcc+binutils >>>> version that can support 486,armv5,ppc750? >>> >>> In general, old versions of both binutils and gcc have lots of unfixe= d >>> bugs, and it's hard to assess completely whether musl will be >>> affected. Non-x86 platforms are much less tested in combination with >>> outdated tools. I would highly recommend against running binutils >>> versions much older than 2.20 or so, and ideally you should be using >>> 2.25 or later. >>> >>> Is there a reason you really want to use old versions? >> not at all, i do not mind using binutils-2.24 for example, except >> old gcc (gcc-3.x) will probably not consent to work with it. >> working with new tools require extensive testing. >=20 > I don't know any reason to expect old gcc to fail with new binutils. > New versions of binutils have to accept old .o files (e.g. from old .a > library archives) and asm hand-written for old versions of the > assembler, etc. and all gcc does is feed asm to the assembler. >=20 >> it would be best to work with known tools, if no new requirement >> asked for. >> besides, new tools normally demand more resources--memory for example.= >=20 > This is definitely true of gcc, but not nearly as much so for > binutils. >=20 >> newer binutils, for example, require new patches to conserve memory...= >> it is not imperative, but if i have the time or will, i like to see >> some old hardware can compile on its own, un-assisted by 16G equipped >> x86-64, few simple tools. it used to be possible. so what has changed?= >> new tools might have new bugs. Though I can't really comment on speed, I will say that for the following hardware platforms: * x86: Pentium III 733MHz, 1 GB RAM, 100 GB PATA disk * PPC: G3 600MHz, "Snow" iBook, 640 MB RAM, 40 GB PATA disk I was able to build an entire Gentoo stage3 using musl + gcc 5.3 + binutils 2.27. This was "Foxtoo", the project before Ad=E9lie. There wa= s no x86_64 builder of any kind involved, except the initial cross. They did however both take a few days of building without being powered off. I will, however, agree that GCC 7 seemed to me to be a hot mess. Haven't evaluated 7.2, but 7.1 was completely unusable for us. Best, --arw --=20 A. Wilcox (awilfox) Project Lead, Ad=E9lie Linux http://adelielinux.org --4gnu99cTaI0woKXm08oH14SU88kqP7Mvm-- --xFWoWqt3lwe6qKgcq9mXM0BoxAmNI8liC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJMBAEBCAA2FiEEjNyWOYPU1SaTSMHHyynLUZIrnRQFAlps+4oYHGF3aWxmb3hA YWRlbGllbGludXgub3JnAAoJEMspy1GSK50ULL4QAK7ivEVdWEgiVDARZf2SSFs9 WEBjJjTyugJa/5L3BlaZGhYxywpq0vPeFN2cgogsAU+y+RZ/EyTgZXy+RKU77UfH VhT72WGAVZzv60Q9y8Yhlj1zrDY9IG5w0fyhawLzLEJ6J62apFFVN1GJ3haEGlk7 EGK44ojUZzS+pyEBr9Pg3Ffk3mHtY366lwXjDN05SSyun8mgO28Merxw/YQDcAtQ jhhJTzjCefbUzljrctec4BQ6bQTXgcnXYiJgt5Ns631ZD+hvnECkwOswucjoFJ5g OGKEzcZ142Ux+oKIMxWtTW/jFDw6Em3lLfxde8nuNaXuHqzeb8QKV4fqDc/nz/1M CpuxaM4y30CxXGyIZ8RzhrcuzKoTa33sJXuXKRhRqoKfpugYwwsvPgvzqaPEDSn6 Y27a815MIPiIoDnGE7ayJam1604YdeWCyJyJ6BK9AuPDipf4+20QlvqZZx1WdCim N069lSFu5t1qnaJfJwrSsk6rX0eKoK4Ch+FHZRD/CJqj6NiaL51ys79B8KfM4G4B IubmBci7zE1+e7Ujfx71bqTGj92tTjFnIZcTd58tLJ2MFSHXYolDiW6v3cyCKDGs e2BSr5AAyvXXNjvHc8OVQFefGkUIBNkj0celdwlHBjn9iL62BlAWmZOCU7hnK9jp K9JhrHyenX1tdz8ymsPZ =VMrz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xFWoWqt3lwe6qKgcq9mXM0BoxAmNI8liC--