walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 13 May 2006 15:28:17 -0700:
> You seem to be running a 'gentoo-unstable' system, am I right? AFAICT, > the latest 'stable' AMD-64 compiler is 3.4.5. Actually, gcc-4.0.3 and 4.1.0 are both still masked for testing, that is not even ~arch yet, AFAIK. 3.4.6 is the latest unmasked version. The problem is that gcc 3.x on amd64 is still very unoptimized. The amd64 arch was a bolt-on half-way thru the series, and until the rewrite of 4.0 that was able to take amd64 into account directly, it remained quite apparent that amd64 was a bolt-on. There have been three major improvements to amd64 support on gcc, the first with gcc-3.2 (I believe) when it was first supported, the second with 3.3, when one could actually do a -march=k8, and now 4.1, the first real effective release of the 4.x series. 4.0 completed the rewrite, but didn't actually deliver on the promise of that rewrite. 4.1 delivers, and despite its masked status, seems far more stable here than any 3.x version EVER was. Anyway, for that reason, gcc 4.1, while it might be a minor improvement for x86, is a *HUGE* improvement for amd64. > Thanks to your observations I just built 0.97 on my ~x86 (gentoo > unstable) box just out of curiosity. I've noticed some distinct > differences in pan's behavior between the two machines, so I can't help > wondering if you might also notice a difference if you built pan on a > 'gentoo-stable' AMD64 machine. > > Do you have such a machine to play with? (I wouldn't dream of being > without both kinds ;o) I actually have three gentoo boxes, and one of > them has both 'stable' and 'unstable' gentoo in separate partitions -- > it's trivial to do (as I'm sure you already know.) I only keep one machine, and altho I do have a second image of everything critical on my system, it's a snapshot image taken periodically when I think the system is stable enough to warrant it, and functions as my backup if anything on ~arch or from my selected hard-masked unmasks, or in reality, as likely my fat-fingering of something, kills something such that I find I can't boot the regular working version. While I don't doubt what you are saying, I'm relatively sure it's mostly due to the different gtk+ versions you'd be running in stable vs. unstable. Also, all of the problems so far have been general bugs, experienced by others as well, or in a couple cases due to my customizing -- the colors thing I reported back with 0.93 IIRC, is such an example -- it would have happened given my color scheme (light text on a darker background, the reverse of most folks, it would seem) regardless of what system versions of whatever I was running. The problem here, BTW, as addressed in another thread, appears to be because Charles always closes using the application close function, while I (and others experiencing unsaved settings) normally close apps using the titlebar close button -- which basically results in the window manager signalling the app to close, rather than using the app's internal close function. The internal close function worked, since Charles tested it. The window manager signaling didn't, as he'd missed a bit of code and never realized it since that's not the way he functions and he never closed the app that way. =8^P Anyway, there's a patch for that that I'll apply shortly, now that it has been traced. Meanwhile, I'll be careful to close PAN using the internal close function, and will hopefully not see the issue again. =8^) All that said, I'd be interested in reading about your differences, just because I'm the curious type. =8^) Maybe they /will/ cause me to revert. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
