* Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
@ 2011-08-05 22:52 Thomas Koenig
2011-08-05 23:27 ` Steve Kargl
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2011-08-05 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc, fortran; +Cc: iant
Hello world,
I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
only the C and fortran are specified. The configure line
../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
--with-mpc=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
leads to the message
checking for version 0.11 (revision 0 or later) of PPL... no
The following languages will be built: c,c++,fortran,lto
I see recent changes by Ian in this area, but nothing in the ChangeLog
suggests to me that this was intentional.
Any ideas?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-05 22:52 Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran Thomas Koenig
@ 2011-08-05 23:27 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 1:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-08-06 9:23 ` Mikael Morin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Steve Kargl @ 2011-08-05 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig; +Cc: gcc, fortran, iant
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 12:52:02AM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
> only the C and fortran are specified. The configure line
>
>
> ../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
> --with-mpc=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
>
> leads to the message
>
> checking for version 0.11 (revision 0 or later) of PPL... no
>
> The following languages will be built: c,c++,fortran,lto
>
> I see recent changes by Ian in this area, but nothing in the ChangeLog
> suggests to me that this was intentional.
>
> Any ideas?
It appears the original thread starts here
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01304.html
--
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-05 22:52 Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran Thomas Koenig
2011-08-05 23:27 ` Steve Kargl
@ 2011-08-06 1:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-08-06 1:56 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 9:23 ` Mikael Morin
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-08-06 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig; +Cc: gcc, fortran
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
> I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
> only the C and fortran are specified. The configure line
>
>
> ../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
> --with-mpc=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
>
> leads to the message
>
> checking for version 0.11 (revision 0 or later) of PPL... no
>
> The following languages will be built: c,c++,fortran,lto
>
> I see recent changes by Ian in this area, but nothing in the ChangeLog
> suggests to me that this was intentional.
It is intentional. In current mainline stages 2 and 3 are now by
default built with the C++ compiler, not the C compiler. Therefore, the
C++ compiler must be built in stages 1 and 2, in order to use to build
the stages 2 and 3 compiler. And then of course we build the C++
compiler in stage 3 in order to compare it.
The ChangeLog entry says that if --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is
set, C++ becomes a boot language. That is what you are seeing. I guess
what the ChangeLog entry does not say is that
--enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is set by default.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-06 1:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2011-08-06 1:56 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 2:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Steve Kargl @ 2011-08-06 1:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: Thomas Koenig, gcc, fortran
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:51:12PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes:
>
> > I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
> > only the C and fortran are specified. The configure line
> >
> >
> > ../trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
> > --with-mpc=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local
> >
> > leads to the message
> >
> > checking for version 0.11 (revision 0 or later) of PPL... no
> >
> > The following languages will be built: c,c++,fortran,lto
> >
> > I see recent changes by Ian in this area, but nothing in the ChangeLog
> > suggests to me that this was intentional.
>
> It is intentional. In current mainline stages 2 and 3 are now by
> default built with the C++ compiler, not the C compiler. Therefore, the
> C++ compiler must be built in stages 1 and 2, in order to use to build
> the stages 2 and 3 compiler. And then of course we build the C++
> compiler in stage 3 in order to compare it.
>
> The ChangeLog entry says that if --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is
> set, C++ becomes a boot language. That is what you are seeing. I guess
> what the ChangeLog entry does not say is that
> --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is set by default.
>
What are the additional resource requirements? Some of
us have old hardware and limited $.
--
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-06 1:56 ` Steve Kargl
@ 2011-08-06 2:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2011-08-06 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Kargl; +Cc: Thomas Koenig, gcc, fortran
Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> writes:
>> The ChangeLog entry says that if --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is
>> set, C++ becomes a boot language. That is what you are seeing. I guess
>> what the ChangeLog entry does not say is that
>> --enable-build-poststage1-with-cxx is set by default.
>>
>
> What are the additional resource requirements? Some of
> us have old hardware and limited $.
The main additional resource requirement is building libstdc++ in stage
1 (and stages 2 and 3 if you were previously not building the C++
compiler at all). The C++ compiler proper is fairly small by
comparison.
At present you can use --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx. However, in
the future, I would like to change gcc to always build with C++. Yes,
this will take more resources.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-05 22:52 Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran Thomas Koenig
2011-08-05 23:27 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 1:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
@ 2011-08-06 9:23 ` Mikael Morin
2011-08-06 13:17 ` Toon Moene
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Morin @ 2011-08-06 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fortran; +Cc: Thomas Koenig, gcc, iant
On Saturday 06 August 2011 00:52:02 Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> I just noticed that C++ now appears to be built by default, even when
> only the C and fortran are specified.
Yes, but it doesn't make much difference in practice. The only difference I
saw is the debugging symbols including the full prototype (not only the
function name) in the debugger.
WRT to bootstrap time, as usual: it's too long.
Mikael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-06 9:23 ` Mikael Morin
@ 2011-08-06 13:17 ` Toon Moene
2011-08-06 15:14 ` Steve Kargl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Toon Moene @ 2011-08-06 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mikael Morin; +Cc: fortran, Thomas Koenig, gcc, iant
On 08/06/2011 11:22 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
> WRT to bootstrap time, as usual: it's too long.
Well, that all depends on your (time) frame of reference, of course. In
the summer months leading up to Craig Burley asking for volunteers
testing g77 (the g77-alpha phase), i.e., during the summer of 1992, a
bootstrap of GCC (C and C++) took 8 hours on my single 25 Mhz Motorola
68040 powered Next Station.
With the new gcc, I could build a fresh f2c in minutes, and, using that
combo (f2c+gcc) a recompile of our weather forecasting code took another
10 minutes.
Nowadays, on a *4 year old* quad core Core 2 machine, building C, C++,
Ada and Fortran takes less than 2 hours, so given that I put in 4 times
as many processors, the rest of the hardware keeps up with providing me
a bootstrap in 1/4th of the time it took 19 years ago, giving me twice
the number of front ends plus run time libraries.
I think the outlook is good :-)
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-06 13:17 ` Toon Moene
@ 2011-08-06 15:14 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 16:31 ` Toon Moene
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Steve Kargl @ 2011-08-06 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Toon Moene; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, Thomas Koenig, gcc, iant
On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 03:16:43PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 11:22 AM, Mikael Morin wrote:
>
> >WRT to bootstrap time, as usual: it's too long.
>
> Well, that all depends on your (time) frame of reference, of course. In
> the summer months leading up to Craig Burley asking for volunteers
> testing g77 (the g77-alpha phase), i.e., during the summer of 1992, a
> bootstrap of GCC (C and C++) took 8 hours on my single 25 Mhz Motorola
> 68040 powered Next Station.
>
> With the new gcc, I could build a fresh f2c in minutes, and, using that
> combo (f2c+gcc) a recompile of our weather forecasting code took another
> 10 minutes.
>
> Nowadays, on a *4 year old* quad core Core 2 machine, building C, C++,
> Ada and Fortran takes less than 2 hours, so given that I put in 4 times
> as many processors, the rest of the hardware keeps up with providing me
> a bootstrap in 1/4th of the time it took 19 years ago, giving me twice
> the number of front ends plus run time libraries.
>
> I think the outlook is good :-)
>
You left out the crucial hardware spec. How much memory
did you have 19 years ago compared to the system today?
My experience with g++ is that it will consume more memory
than gcc.
--
Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran
2011-08-06 15:14 ` Steve Kargl
@ 2011-08-06 16:31 ` Toon Moene
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Toon Moene @ 2011-08-06 16:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steve Kargl; +Cc: Mikael Morin, fortran, Thomas Koenig, gcc, iant
On 08/06/2011 05:14 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> You left out the crucial hardware spec. How much memory
> did you have 19 years ago compared to the system today?
> My experience with g++ is that it will consume more memory
> than gcc.
That might be true - I have never experienced memory shortage *building*
C and C++ in 1992 - I had 16 Mbyte of RAM at that time.
Nowadays I have 4 Gbyte of RAM, but still *bootstrapping* doesn't seem
to be a problem (certain parts of the weather forecasting system these
days stretch the virtual memory system, but with 4 Gbyte RAM and 11
Gbyte SWAP I still survive).
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/
Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-06 16:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-08-05 22:52 Building C++ with --enable-languages=c,fortran Thomas Koenig
2011-08-05 23:27 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 1:51 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-08-06 1:56 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 2:09 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2011-08-06 9:23 ` Mikael Morin
2011-08-06 13:17 ` Toon Moene
2011-08-06 15:14 ` Steve Kargl
2011-08-06 16:31 ` Toon Moene
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).